Institute of Social and Economic Research Archives

White House plan to reverse clean water rules paves the way for construction of Pebble Mine, a catastrophic move for Bristol Bay watershed, 60 million salmon, and more than 20,000 jobs

Decision flies in the face of science and basic reason, made with no public input from fishermen or business groups

October 11, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the office of Senator Maria Cantwell:

Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Rep. Jared Huffman (CA-02), and 40 of their colleagues in the House and Senate sent a forceful letter to President Trump urging caution and a careful consideration of the facts before his administration removes the science-based environmental rules that protect Alaska’s Bristol Bay and the fishermen who depend on it.

Removing the existing clean water protections allows for the construction of Pebble Mine, an open-pit copper and gold mine that could have a depth equivalent to as much as two and a half Trump Towers. The mine would be an unmitigated catastrophe for the Bristol Bay watershed and the 40-60 million salmon who return to it every year. A three-year Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study in 2014 found that the proposed mine would, even in the course of normal, safe mine operations, destroy 24 to 94 miles of salmon-producing waterways and pristine environment.

The University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research found that the Bristol Bay fishery supports more than 20,000 jobs and adds $674 million of economic activity to the states of Washington, Oregon, and California. The region also supports a prolific outdoor recreation industry; anglers from around the world take roughly 37,000 fishing trips annually to Bristol Bay, generating $60 million in economic activity.

“The EPA’s plan to reverse clean water safeguards is egregious and inconsistent with science, and frankly, inconsistent with basic logic,” wrote the members of Congress. “The Pebble Mine directly threatens our maritime economy and thousands of American jobs that rely on this world class fishery. We ask you to listen to America’s fishermen and businesses and reverse EPA’s decision to undo strong protections and clean water safeguards in Bristol Bay.”

Cantwell, Huffman, and their colleagues note the process that established the current clean water safeguards were the result of rigorous scientific analysis and peer review, over one million public comments, and eight public hearings.

In stark contrast, the Trump Administration’s recent decision to roll back the protections has no scientific basis and has been carefully removed from the public eye. There has been no input from stakeholders such as the fishing, tourism, and outdoor industries. Only two public hearings have been noticed, neither of which are scheduled for Washington, Oregon or California where many Bristol Bay commercial and sports fishermen reside.

In their letter, the members of Congress also called for public hearings, a 90-day extension of the public comment period, and other transparency measures to ensure the public is allowed to make their voices heard. Restrictions on mining have the support of 90% of local Bristol Bay residents.

Senator Cantwell successfully led the fight to save Bristol Bay when Pebble Mine was first proposed. In 2011, she urged the EPA to use authority under the Clean Water Act to block large scale development in Bristol Bay. She continued the drumbeat through 2014, when she rallied supporters at Fisherman’s Terminal in Seattle to urge President Obama and the EPA to continue to prevent mining in the area.

In addition to Sen. Cantwell and Rep. Huffman, 40 additional member of Congress signed the letter including: Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Edward Markey (D-MA) and Representatives Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Earl Blumenauer (OR-03), Barbara Lee (CA-13), Grace Napolitano (CA-32), Jackie Speier (CA-14), Anna Eshoo (CA-18), William Keating (MA-09), Adam Smith (WA-09), Denny Heck (WA-10), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-Del.), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Alan Lowenthal (CA-47), Dwight Evans (PA-02), Peter DeFazio (OR-04), Zoe Lofgren (CA-19), Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Emanual Cleaver, II (MO-05), Rick Larsen (WA-02), Derek Kilmer (WA-06), Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11), Judy Chu (CA-27), Ro Khanna (CA-17), Jerry McNerney (CA-9), John Garamendi (CA-3), Suzan DelBene (WA-01), Kurt Schrader (OR-05), Jimmy Panetta (CA-20), Donald S. Beyer, Jr. (VA-08), Norma Torres (CA-35), Doris Matsui (CA-06), Ted Lieu (CA-33), Linda Sánchez (CA-38), Julia Brownley (CA-26), and Salud Carbajal (CA-24).

A copy of the letter can be found here.

January 5, 2016 — Most of the benefit from the commercial fishing industry goes to local government, while the state overspends itself, according to a new analysis.

A study conducted by Bob Loeffler and Steve Colt of the University of Alaska Anchorage’s Institute of Social and Economic Research found that the state spends about $27.2 million more on commercial fishing than it receives in revenue from the industry.

This includes regulation, operations and capital projects. However, it does not consider federal funds, which play a role in Alaska’s fisheries as many salt-water fisheries are at least partially federally managed.

Local governments make out considerably better — they take in about 40 percent of the revenue from the commercial fishing industry, according to the analysis. And that does not include the benefits to the local economy, such as spending at local businesses.

The state also spends far more on commercial fishing than it does on other sectors of the economy, such as mining and tourism, which where also examined in the ISER report. Including operations and capital projects, the state spends approximately $78.3 million on the commercial fishing industry every year. Combined with local governments’ expenditures, the total reaches approximately $96.8 million.

Read the full story at Peninsula Clarion