I recall a Monty Python skit where two men meet and one man insinuates that the wife of other is of questionable virtue. He will not come right out and say it, but makes his point through a series of “know whatahmean, wink/wink, nod/nod” suggestions. It was a play on the old “a wink and a nod” tactic used to covertly support an activity that contains an underlying, unspoken context.
This is how the relentless push to promote the AJ Mine seems to be playing out. It is clear that the major stumbling block to developing the AJ Mine is its threat to Juneau’s only year-round drinking water system. The context left unspoken is that the AJ would be much more attractive to a potential developer if said developer did not have to pay for impacts to our drinking water supply.
Today, Monday, Jan. 7 the Assembly will be considering a resolution that calls for the City to begin the process of building a multi-million dollar filtration plant at Salmon Creek. If you thought this is related to the possible development of the AJ Mine, you would be wrong. The Resolution clearly states that “such plans anticipate that the AJ Mine may or may not be developed in the future (wink/wink, nod/nod).”
The resolution also adopts the new Municipal Drinking Water Supply Plan. This plan sets out the policies of the CBJ “in the event that the CBJ needs to increase its supply of drinking water.” The Plan lists six reasons that would “trigger” expansion of the drinking water system at Salmon Creek. None of these triggers have been met, but this planned expansion is not about furthering the promotion of the AJ (wink/wink, nod/nod).
In 2011 CBJ conducted a risk assessment of the Last Chance Basin watershed. The AJ Mine Related Water Study that resulted identified three separate concerns. Two of the concerns are related to resuming mine development and the third concern is with the rising level of polluted water in the Deep North section of the mine that someday will spill out of the drainage tunnel. However, the justification for this large expenditure of public money to build a redundant water system is not still related to promoting the AJ Mine (wink/wink, nudge/nudge).
Meanwhile, the CBJ will consider changes to the water use rates that may have impacts to metered businesses, bringing Salmon Creek into compliance with secondary disinfection requirements not met, the structural integrity of the water storage tunnel is uncertain, the renovations to the drainage tunnel recommended by the Advisory Committee are not being considered, both the Juneau Douglas and Mendenhall Wastewater Treatment Plants are in need of major upgrades (the necessary other end of water production), and for decades the CBJ’s water and wastewater infrastructure has been operating without any attempt to contribute to a capital replacement fund a little at a time to avoid the eventual sticker-shock of replacement.
I would think assuring the adequacy of the existing infrastructure would take precedence over building redundancy.
Oh, and after one meeting dedicated to hearing from the public on the AJ Mine issue two years ago, the Resolution promises “an open and deliberative public process (wink/wink, nod/nod, nudge/nudge).”
• Archibald is the Mining and Clean Water Coordinator for the SouthEast Alaska Conservation Council.
Comments (21)
Add commentNo wink,No nod.......
To reopen the AJ mine an alternate drinking water supply will be developed. What's the problem Guy?
Guy you have no credibility
SEACC spending lower 48 tax exempt dollars to destroy our economy. Dear Congress, if you need someone to tax, please tax SEACC and its deep pocket, lower 48 Foundations and trusts.
this
record seams to have a scratch in it, as it keeps playing the same lines over & over
The status quo...
...is drinking from an aquifer that a historic mine drains into. What part of this scenario solicits a wink and a nod? I've always wondered why our city water comes largely from a drainage shared with the old diggings when we have a large reservoir higher in the mountains. I can get behind a filtration plant with or without the AJ. And SEACC goes on record of being opposed to MORE CLEAN WATER. What a conundrum. What hypocrisy. An agenda driven contradiction. P~~~ on SEACC.
I usually don't get personal...
...but go back home SEACC. Guy you are a shyster.
Your points are not made up or fantasy wink/wink nod/nod.
Dear SEACC, we Alaskans take better care of our land than you do down in California. So stop using the fake environment issues to control us. Go back home and pick up trash on Ventura Beach and leave us alone. It is disgusting how you use lies to promote your agendas. I love nature, as do most Alaskans. Why do you think we live up here? We are not out to destroy our environment. Humans are part of the environment as well, so it is you that is doing the most damage to the environment. Thanks for trying to keep our community down; you are bullies. You are no better than cyber bullies, or the guy in school who knocks the books out of the weaker students hands. Leave us alone.
We need a second source of drinking water, mine or no mine, for the sole reason that we if our single source goes down we would be up a non-potable creek. Now, it does appear that looking at opening the mine may have sparked the realization that we would be in trouble if the drinking water was contaminated; and you now use that as "evidence".
The City has the biggest stake in the mine (I believe 65%), so why wouldn't they work to get it open. We could tax our community less if the City could generate extra income.
Honestly, Guy, I did not take the time to read past the first few paragraphs. So who knows what other dribble fell out of the corners of your mouth onto the keyboard. Have a nice day, Guy. But please, please, move back home and take your cronies with you. No wink. No nod. No secret, you are a crook with a forked tongue.
It has always bothered me
It has always bothered me that our drinking water is circulating around in the old mine shafts. The reservoir is a mine shaft. We really need to beef up Salmon Creek. If for nothing else, one good avalanche or mudslide and Gold Creek could be not longer usable.
it seems there's no question....
that discussion about re-opening the AJ prompted the city to expand the water capacity.
My concern is this: If the city is going to (presumably) offer up the AJ to the highest bidder, can we Please, for once, make sure that the city takes in enough revenue from the project (land leases, or whatever) to pay for projects we build in order to make sure the project happens?
I'm going to be irritated if my water rates double so some outside company (speaking of outside money) can come in with outside workers and take all the gold and profits back to Idaho, or England, or wherever. The whole "brings jobs to Juneau" thing rings a little hollow, because these kinds of operations bring most of the skilled labor with them, and those folks are temporary residents - staying a year or two, or flying back and forth to "home" in the states.
@Swimmergirl
I agree with you wholeheartedly. We need to make sure that a certain percentage of the jobs are filled by Juneau, or S.E., residents. Of course, some jobs may not be able to be filled in this manner, because of a lack of degrees, knowledge, skill-sets, etc. However, it should be so, to the best of the City's ability.
Also, opening the mine should decrease the amount of money taken out of the community's pockets; including not raising water prices. In fact, in my opinion, the City should be looking to increase the amount of water sold to the cruise ships and use those profits to further offset the costs of the secondary water source project. That may not be a big dent in the cost, but every dollar counts.
We VOTED FOR the water system
It was on the list of sales tax projects. It was approved by the Assembly and forwarded to the voters in October. The voters approved the sales tax plan. End of discussion.
Similarly, the voters approved, narrowly, the new bonds. The Assembly is moving forward with that too. I dont like it, but it is what it is.
Dont try to undo what the voters already approved SEACC!
41 years ago
Mount Juneau had an avalanche on Jan. 19, 1972 that took out Juneau's Gold Creek Water system. Many good Juneau folks will remember because you could not forget that day.
I know I know...avalanches only happen rarely...just like earthquakes (wink wink nod nod) but the 64 quake, the 72 basin road avalanche and the "two" once in a hundred year avalanches at Snettisham prove as reminders that putting all of your eggs in one basket is only tempting nature to prove you wrong.
There is nothing wrong with redundancy. When you have a fire...two fire extinguishers are indeed better than one. If the City can afford a beefed up filtration system and the voters have OK'd the expenditure then it is immaterial to AJ. Being prepared is what separates those who survive versus those who survive based on the generosity of those that plan.
I believe the City's elected officials are acting wisely.
I'm a little unclear...
I can't speak to the subject matter, but I too am a little unclear -- on the letter itself.
Is Guy writing this as an authorized opinion of the Juneau Empire?
The piece is identified as "Opinion" and not a "My Turn" or "Letter to the Editor", so does that mean this article reflects the views of the publisher on this topic?
An Empire editorial...
...usually declares itself as such in the title. But, I would like to hear it straight from the horses mouth. So, how about it? Mose? Chuck? Abbey? Does Guy speak for the editorial staff as well?
Lots of Discussion
Not having all the facts in hand regarding a possible reopening of the AJ and development of new water systems I will withhold any technical comment. I do feel strongly that IF the AJ was to reopen, the CBJ could live very large on the fruits of the endeavor. I know people in town that say that the CBJ could have their own Permanent Fund, taxes could be cut to nothing, infrastructure projects of all kinds would be green lighted, and all would live happily ever after. It is certainly an option that needs to be given due consideration. Developing an alternative water supply is a great idea regardless if the AJ flies or dies.
Dissenting assembly votes.
Loren Jones and Karen Crane.
Paul Nowlin for Assembly!
Thank You Skirkz
Appreciate that.
AJ
Lots of downsides and risks to trying to open the mine, but we do need to consider the upsides as well.
There are wise and good things that we could do with that money. For example, how about setting up an educational trust for every kid in school - if you maintain good grades through high school graduation (and you MUST graduate), your college or technical school is paid for.
Building a multi-million
This is a gross misuse of our public money. This public money is being directed to ultimately create wealth for private business at the expense of public safety. Our community has more urgent needs than building a redundant water supply system.
Ael&p, Inc. & shareholders will benefit handsomely from the AJ mine opeining considering they are co-owners to it and would supply power 24/7. I calculate that Aelp must rake in between 500K & 800K per quarter from the Greens Creek mine. The AJ mine is about wealth creation for private business it is not about cutting your bills or providing you with more clean water.
You need to get your head checked if you think private industry and all the shareholders are going to share their gold with you.
Loren Jones and Karen Crane are looking out for the best interests of the public.
Jus because some people will
Jus because some people will profit and gain from a project doesn't automatically make it this evil thin Conner. Would the city benifit as well? Yup. Worth it? Way way way too early to tell. Take one thing at a time. The majority of voters in this town ok'd this project. Nuff said.
@Lat
I like the way you think. I was thinking that if the mine could be opened responsibly, that lowering taxes and other costs to the community would be good. However, I think educating our youth is important. I have heard of programs like that before. If kids are willing to put in the effort in K-12 and do well, it stands to reason that they will continue that effort into college level courses. I think the profits the City could bring in could be put to use in many fine arenas. Not sure why you got thumbs down commenting about improving education, but I dig it.
Plans for someone elses money before it arrives...
...is typical of CBJ and their potential beneficiaries.
"For example, how about setting up an educational trust for every kid in school - if you maintain good grades through high school graduation (and you MUST graduate), your college or technical school is paid for."
Talk about breaking the bank in the name of entitlement. Every graduate gets a free ride? Sounds like a supplemental bond issue hanging. And where does this alleviate property and sales tax burdens? Listen. If you want to improve education, hire some educators.
Transparency isn't bad.
Seems Guy is merely observing that our political processes are not as transparent as they could be - that what we are sold isn't always presented as directly as it should be.
Hard to argue against that.
Remember the second high school? The second parking garage? The fuss over a second crossing? The plan for a second ferry terminal 90 miles north of the existing ferry terminal? Now a second water system that we may or may not need sometime in the future for something or another or not.
Seems we have a trend for duplicate projects sold to the electorate with duplicitous justifications. Nothing all that new for Juneau.
I'm pretty sure we would not be discussing the dire need for duplicate water systems were it not for the hope of reopening the AJ.
Regardless of how you feel about any of the projects put before the fine citizens of our fair community, a bit more transparency and a little less nudging and winking would be nice. What could it hurt?
And speaking of cyberbullying, a little bit more civility and fewer personal attacks in this forum wouldn't hurt either. We all live here and all love this place for our own good reasons.
Good people can disagree without being disagreeable. I'm thinking in particular of David Stone as I write this - hoping we don't forget his fine example for all of us.
That's my $.02