Do you want to limit the authority of the federal government over coastal development projects in Alaska? Do you want to increase the influence of the state and its coastal residents over those projects?
Then you couldn’t do better than to cast a ‘Yes” vote for Proposition 2 on Alaska’s Aug. 28 primary election ballot. If approved, this proposition will bring the Alaska Coastal Management Program back to life.
Alaskans benefited from such a program for 34 years. Unfortunately, it was allowed to lapse last year and we’ve been without it since, despite legislative efforts to resuscitate it.
Now we’re the only coastal state in the country without such a program, despite the fact that we have the longest coastline.
The program originated at the federal level to give states and their coastal residents a seat at the table in decision-making on coastal development projects. Its absence means Alaska has voluntarily ceded much of its authority in this area to the federal government, an ironic outcome for a state priding itself on independence and self-determination.
As state Rep. Beth Kerttula said of the coastal management program, “We rule over the federal government. This is the only program that does that, this is an incredible power.”
The Aug. 28 ballot measure would set up a coastal policy board of four department commissioners from state government and nine coastal Alaskans appointed by the governor. The board would ensure coastal voices were heard in development decisions, oversee the development of regulations to implement the program, and coordinate the efforts of various agencies involved in the permitting process.
Opponents of Proposition 2 argue that restoring the coastal management program could impede development.
History says otherwise. Under Alaska’s old coastal management program, massive projects such as the North Slope oil fields, the Red Dog lead-zinc mine near Kotzebue, and the Kensington gold mine near Juneau all came to fruition and contribute to our economy today.
The program was a boon to all parties in debates over development projects. It expedited the permitting process and allowed coastal Alaskans a way to resolve their concerns without resort to expensive and time-consuming litigation.
For example, our organization found the old coastal management program highly useful to us and our member communities in the work of analyzing and commenting on the comprehensive plans required of the oil industry on how it will prevent and clean up oil spills in Prince William Sound. Never in its history did the old program become a vehicle for efforts to shut down the oil terminal in Valdez or the tankers that use it. The purpose of the program is to create consensus on development projects, not block them.
At a recent Juneau hearing on the ballot measure, the owner of a concrete casting company described the old program as an effective tool for development and said that “for a small developer, it’s almost imperative.”
The state’s own website for the old program still touts its benefits, such as balancing the need for development in coastal areas with the need to protect uses and resources there; serving as a tool for liaison with federal agencies; and providing developers with a single point of contact for state’s review of their permit applications.
Opponents also complain the new measure is imperfectly written and will require new regulations. That may be true, but it’s not unusual, nor is it a serious problem. Many new laws are implemented through regulations, and many also require a legislative tune-up after a few years in operation.
For more than three decades, our coastal management program helped Alaskans balance state and coastal interests against those of the federal government in reviewing and approving development projects. As a citizens’ advisory council, we’ve learned that citizen involvement in decision-making benefits everyone—the state as a whole, coastal communities, and industry alike.
On Aug. 28, Alaskans should vote yes on Proposition 2 and reclaim their once powerful voice in deciding how their coastal interests should best be managed.
• Swanson is executive director of the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council, www.pwsrcac.org. The council works to reduce the chances of oil spills like the Exxon Valdez and ensure a better cleanup if one should occur.
Comments (49)
Add commentIf the old plan worked so well,...
...doesn't it make more sense to tune it up instead of risking Alaska's economy at this time with a new, untested plan? Prop. 2 threatens to set back responsible economic development for the "couple of years" it takes to figure out what to tune up. Quit trying to make us believe that the new plan re-establishes the old plan.
It was a big mistake to drop the ACMP. Don't make a bigger mistake by passing this Frankenplan.
Vote "NO" on Prop. 2!
Im voting no
Agree with commenter above. If the old system was so good why didnt they use it instead of writing a complete new one with so much more power and little detail?
The old program didnt allow aesthetics to be a reason this one does? How do you measure that? How do you quantify it? Is it just one enviromental attorney's opinion? Oh we dont know because the poorly drafted proposal doesn't say.
The old program required everything to be based on science. This one allows for "traditional knowledge" or science? So what does that mean? Well no one knows except it is different than science. If the old program was so good why did they take out scientific basis and insert opinion?
Lies and distortions by enviromentalists trying to stop the road and close our mines. I can see it now the Kensington mine is not aesthetically pleasing so you cant build it. What were these radical enviromentalists thinking, that no one would read it?
If tyhe old program was so good why didnt you use it?
Yet another choreographed plea...
Yet another choreographed plea that dances around a key issue by failing to admit honestly that this initiative strays significantly from the old ACMP program.
So let's try to counteract that deliberate bit of deflection with a summary of concerns. First, please read the initiave for yourself, independent of the advertising hype from either side, at:
http://www.alaskacoastalmanagement.org/ACMP%20Initiative.pdf
The writer claims this initiative allows Alaskans to reclaim their voice. As written in this ballot measure, an unelected coastal zone board has the ability to enforce limitations dictated solely by its own perception of "aesthetic values" -- outside of the public process utilized to establish local and state statutes, or define those values as a community (page 12, line 25.)
Further, the ballot measure contains no reference as to how the members of this "local" costal zone board are subject to community review and control (appointment process described page 1 lines 11-13; and verification that removal of a public member can only be recommended by the board itself and not the public within the community it serves, page 2 line18.)
These are two stipulations among several in the measure that never existed in the previous ACMP of the past 34 years.
Not only is the voice of a citizen that doesn't happen to serve on this board silenced, there's no way for him or her to ever have that voice heard by being elected themselves or supporting a different citizen for election to the Board. Alaskan voices, especially those in favor of responsible development in compliance with all other permit requirements, will have no avenue but to file a lawsuit.
Perhaps that's paranoia, but if so then why are two of Alaska's oldest and most respected unions, Teamsters Local 959 and Operating Engineers Local 302, recommending a "No" vote on the ballot measure? Because they too see a loss of voice and a huge negative impact on jobs. With many members that are third or fourth generation Alaskans, they have a history for preserving the power of their voice and standing up for Alaska.
In a strong representative republic, a citizen often delegates his voice -- but never, never releases the reins to those controlling his destiny.
Have to wonder how much public input
was assigned to drawing this plan up.
Vote No on 2...
I say yes to the two opening questions, but the solution is not Ballot Measure 2.
An example
Mayflower Island down in Douglas is owned by the Feds. If one day the Feds came up with the bright idea to install a gargantuan satellite tracking dish there, painted hot pink, with dozens of strobe lights on it...we'd have no say in the matter.
States and municipalities have no say over what goes on on federal property. As long as it complies with federal laws such as FAA regs and doesn't harm endangered species, our say in the matter is pretty limited.
With a coastal management program we could raise the issue of aesthetics, impacts on our tourism industry, etc.
Don't like the current initiative? Understood. But it's not likely you'll see another one in a long time. Obviously the Parnell Administration and his corporate overlords aren't going to allow one to emerge from the Legislature unless their hand is forced by the voters.
Really Lat?
We should pass this initiative, full of flaws because we are concerned we won't get a chance to address this again? What kind of argument is that?! It is our responsibility as residents of Alaska, to ensure that our elected representatives take responsible action. We must demand that the legislature go back to the drawing board on this legislation. Hold them accountable to their constituents. I have seen a positive response supporting a Coastal Management Program from both sides of the aisle, just not this ballot measure.
I will continue to believe that a bipartisan plan can happen, that will benefit all Alaskans.
Why vote Yes on
Why vote Yes on 2?
Measure 2 backs states' rights, local control
http://www.adn.com/2012/08/16/2590773/measure-2-backs-states-rights.html...
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/why-alaskans-should-vote-restore-c...
Shell Oil top contributor in campaign to stop Alaska coastal initiative
A huge concern for Alaska is
A huge concern for Alaska is the Offshore Aquaculture Act, which will establish federal fish farms in federal waters 3 to 200 miles off Alaska. Without an approved state coastal program, the federal government can proceed without consulting or considering state policy such as Alaska's ban on fish farming. Without coastal management, we open the doors to offshore fish farms and risk damage to our thriving wild fisheries.
Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/08/16/2590773/measure-2-backs-states-rights.html...
PROPosition 2
I wonder how many of you that are against Prop 2 are fisherman. Do you realize. like stated above, that without a state costal management plan fish farming will be able to overrun our state. It has been proven in other places where fish farming is allowed the nonfarmed fish die out and the sick farmed fish replace them. I don't know how many if you have eaten the farmed salmon, but it is soft, has poor color and has NO taste
Another board like BOG?
"The Aug. 28 ballot measure would set up a coastal policy board of four department commissioners from state government and nine coastal Alaskans appointed by the governor."
Since the Governor also appoints the four commissioners (although confirmation by the Legislature for those four is necessary), the entire board is actually filled with Governor appointees. We know how well that works for the Board of Game. And NONE of the appointees must have a background in any science of any kind.
While I am worried about who makes up the opposition to this ballot measure, I am also concerned about having a poorly crafted program with damaging unintended consequences. Still unsure how I am voting ... but leaning toward a no.
Mayflower Island...
would look nice with a gargantuan satellite dish and lots of bright strobe lights on it.
oh,yeah.........and paint the building hot pink. Nothin' wrong with that.
Easier to find in the dark.
NEPA
Many here do not know up from down about Federal projects. Try reading and understanding NEPA before making claims about the public voice, or lack of, for federally funded projects. And no, the feds cannot just do projects where and as they like.
Trust
This whole thing is a mess.
What legacy is Sean Parnell leaving Alaska?
He kills the Coastal Management program because he believes it will make it easier for oil companies to drill, then he goes against all the Senate bi-Partisan committees recommendations this past session, tries to pass an oil tax law that even some of the most pro-development Republicans in Alaska refused to support...what next?
I can't believe I voted for him!
As a person whose family depends on the commercial fishing industry, the thought of fish farms off our coast makes me shudder.
I don't know what the solution is yet nor how I'll vote.
Right now, I'm just ticked off we are in this situation.
Without realizing it...
Without realizing it, Lat58 had reiterated one of the strongest arguments posed by the Vote No on 2 campaign.
Take Lat's example, only turn that around to be a city municipal project, approved by the planning commission, assembly, and in the case of large projects possibly even the voters -- say for example, a second crossing; a new cruise ship dock; or a even a new ice rink or bronze sculpture, especially if visible from the navigable waterway.
Under the program articulated in this proposal, the unelected coastal board could still find that project inconsistent with its perception of aesthetic values (perhaps based on the mindsets of Nome, Kenai or Anchorage representatives on the board) even if that perception is not shared by the majority in the local community.
In this case, delegation of local power without retention of the ability to control that power is a pretty dangerous proposition...
For "concerned"
Perhaps you don't fully understand what "science" is. When one says that "traditional knowledge" is not "science," that is not true.
Scientific studies are based on inductive or deductive reasoning. That is, they are based on data collection, facts and information gathered over time.
For inductive reasoning, it may take, months or even years, or perhaps even longer to make long- term observations before having the data to try and arrive at a possible explanation. Maybe you have seen scientific reports that it took many years, or even several generations to gather the facts and data to attempt to come to an explanation. This kind of research cannot be done by sending a group of researchers to some place for a few weeks, months or even years. It may take much longer.
Native people who have lived in various parts of Alaska for many generations, and have people who have observed and recorded what they have seen is in fact a form of "science."
For deductive reasoning, it proceeds by saying "I have a possible explanation, lets go out and see if the facts support my hypo-thesis - that is an explanation that I can't prove yet.
To gather the facts and data may take much more than a week, month or even a year of on-the-ground observation. That is exactly what many local residents do in their local area.
They may not have college degrees, or be designated as "scientist," but they do have years of observation.
Their voices should be heard as well as those with "credentials" as "scientists" but who have never lived nor spent a lifetime observing the area around them.
I learned that decades ago, when a Native hunter and trapper in the interior explained to me the difference between "left and right handed moose" if one were hunting them. When hunting moose, I found he was absolutely right in telling me what to watch for along the trail of a moose. He didn't have a Ph.D. in animal biology, he didn't spend a few weeks making observations. He had spent his life, providing for his family, on his scientific observations and knew probably much more than "professional scientist." I have yet to see a Ph.D. dissertation describing and explaining "right and left handed moose." All I know is Edmund was correct and right on!
We need to hear the voices of people like him as well as the voices of other "scientists".
Yukon Jack
I agree with you whole heartedly about fish farms. They would be a disaster in Alaska and for the rest of the folks who eat salmon as part of their diet.
Maybe I, as a senile old Alaskan, don't understand how having some kind of local input on "development" will open the way to fish farming in Alaska. Maybe I am missing something in the proposed initiative.
Could you give me, and other commentators some specifics to why the proposed Coastal Management program would do that?
From what I can tell of the proposal is that it is far from perfect, or what Alaskans would like to have. But, by tossing the proposal out what would that leave us with?? Would it leave us with no voice in what happens along our coast? Would it leave a wide open door for "developers" to do whatever they want to profit themselves and their corporate shareholder?
I am not enthralled nor convinced that the current proposal is the best answer,but what would you suggest would be a better way to go?
I am one of those damned "liberals" who happens to have an open mind to better recommendations, possible solutions and might agree to something even better.
@Prof. Olson
The point here isn't whether we need and benefit from a coastal management plan that involves the imput of those that it impacts the most. I think that the majority of us agree with that concept. The point, as I can best acertain, is that with the expiration of the previous coastal management plan came the opportunity for special interests to rewrite a plan that would obstruct prospective development that could benefit not only the developer, but, per chance, the sons of the left hand moose hunter. The point that I make is, just anything is not better than nothing. Prop. 2 is not the management plan that seemed to work so well, according to Knowles and the proponents suggest. It is skewed toward the bent of extremism and obstructionism.
Waste your vote
And roll over for multinational resource developers! Vote NO on Prop. 2! THAT'll learn ya. OR actually read the proposal, as "mediawatchdog" suggests, though from what he's said so far, I think he's betting you won't really do it. There are plenty of checks and balances in there, though they're scattered throughout, especially toward the end, all of which have to do with community feedback, what skirkz here would call a "bent of extremism and obstructionism."
I have read it jamison: I see no "checks & balances".
***
i am voting NO!
I am voting no no no no no no no.
easy for you to say, Ken
but public votes and participation, as well as conformity with existing laws and statutes, a requirement for public hearings and judicial review, are implicit throughout, from the development of the program (Sec. 46.41.040, a. 3, A-H) in compliance with 16 U.S.C. 1451 – 1464 (Coastal Zone
8 Management Act of 1972); to that of Coastal Districts (Sec. 46.41.060, 2. A-F [though I imagine some on the "right" will find the scientific evidence clause as disconcerting]), the organization of Coastal Resource Service Areas and Boards (46.41.120 and 46.41.130), elections (46.41.140), the preparation of the program (46.41.150), Cooperative Administration (46.41.170, a,b), and Construction and other laws (46.41.180)----This proposal, as written, makes every effort to base its decisions on the will of the communities affected within the framework of existing state and federal law, public hearings, and judicial review.
Opponents, funded by large multinational resource development companies, seem to think most Alaskans are too stupid to wade through what is actually a fairly straightforward and not all that long piece of legislation, and from what I can tell opposition to this still boils down to two real things: The reluctance to give coastal communities a say in the development of their local resources (and we can hark back to some recent statements on the part of Inupiat Elders regarding the development of oil and natural gas off shore to know why), and the supposed adding of another layer of bureaucracy to a permitting process that many already find onerous. Once the Coastal Resource Service Areas are organized and their boards elected, however, this act would serve to coordinate the various state and federal agencies in that permitting process in the full light of day, with public hearings, and with an eye to responsible resource development, every bit as much as cultural, environmental, and historical concerns.
The "right" doesn't like it because it's being proposed by the "left", after being abandoned by the Governor, and because of recent dramas involving a proposed gold mine, not to mention an overall push to eliminate as much oversight as possible: They want resource development itself to be the one and only concern.
Vote Yes on 2 to give local communities and their representatives a seat at the table regarding resource development in their areas.
And yes, actually take 20 minutes and read through it: http://www.alaskacoastalmanagement.org/ACMP%20Initiative.pdf
And for members of the Party of No out there
I'd like to hear exactly HOW this proposal is in any way inferior to the previous ACMP, before it was largely gutted by Murky---So far all I've heard are vague objections based on hearsay and obfuscation.
Governor-appointed board
"(1) nine public members and alternates appointed by the governor from a list
12 composed of at least three names from each region, nominated and submitted by the coastal
13 districts of each region; one public member shall be appointed from each of the following
14 regions:
15 (A) northwest Alaska, including, generally, the area of the North Slope
16 Borough and the Northwest Arctic Borough;
17 (B) Bering Straits, including, generally, the area of the Bering Straits regional
18 educational attendance area and the City of Nome;
19 (C) southwest Alaska, including, generally, the area within the Lower Yukon,
20 Lower Kuskokwim, and Southwest regional educational attendance areas, the City of
21 Bethel, and the Lake and Peninsula and Bristol Bay Boroughs;
22 (D) Kodiak-Aleutians, including the area of the Kodiak Island and Aleutian
23 East Boroughs and the Aleutian, Adak and Pribilof regional educational attendance
24 areas;
25 (E) Upper Cook Inlet, including the Municipality of Anchorage and the
26 Matanuska-Susitna Borough;
27 (F) Lower Cook Inlet, including, generally, the area within the Kenai Peninsula
28 Borough;
29 (G) Prince William Sound, including, generally, the area east of the Kenai
30 Peninsula Borough to 141 W. longitude;
31 (H) northern Southeast Alaska, including the area southeast of 141 W.
32 longitude and north of 57 N. latitude, including the entirety of the City and Borough An Act establishing the Alaska Coastal Management Program
Page 2 of 15
1 of Sitka; and
2 (I) southern Southeast Alaska, including that portion of southeastern Alaska
3 not contained within the area described in (H) of this paragraph;
4 (2) each of the following:
5 (A) the commissioner of environmental conservation;
6 (B) the commissioner of fish and game;
7 (C) the commissioner of natural resources; and
8 (D) the commissioner of commerce, community, and economic development."
This, my only objection so far to the proposal, could actually be considered a significant check, Ken, in the hands of Parnell, for instance---But he has to choose from a list of at least three people presented to him by that region's elected board. They serve for three years, and can be re-appointed.
Pardon me for saying it, Ken, but I don't think this overwhelmingly red state is chocked enough with "environmentalist wackos" to stack that board in favor of "extremism and obstructionism."
But neither are they likely to be of the Development At Any Cost mindset: They've got their livelihoods staring them in the face every day, in the form of healthy coastal ecosystems and the availability of renewable resources, and aren't likely to trade their salmon streams for coal, containment dams, or very finite regional employment.
There are points to debate about this, but this proposal is a LONG way from the sort of Totalitarian Trojan Horse that is being portrayed by its opponents.
Vote Yes on 2, and help deal yourself into the democratic process regarding resources in your area.
Two people
The two people who seem most knowledgeable about this measure are media watchdog (voting no) and Jamison (voting yes).
I remain on the fence.
It would be nice to see a discussion with yes/no camp leaders where we could ask questions...
I wouldn't say that at all, middle...
I've just read through the proposal, which doesn't take all that long, and quoted some of it, to counter disingenuous and what I consider to be vague arguments from opponents.
As a side-note, Ken, I wasted my weekly cup of coffee on you, mostly because you're willing to use your name. Respect, Dude.
Jamison Paul
Checks and balances
I would think that the presence of the governor-appointed commissioners of environmental conservation, fish and game, natural resources, and commerce (Page 2, Lines 5 - 8) would balance any "environmentalist whackos".
Listen
to all those crickets, dust!
That's one of the weaknesses
Correction: A quorum under this proposal would actually be 5 public members and two designated members
chirp!
I had not considered that aspect, Jamison - a potential "stacking" indeed! Especially as I think Alaska is likely to continue to elect governors who are more conservative, pro-unregulated-development, and anti-science, than not, at least until the next generation gets into office.