AN OP ED
Ballot Measure 1 Would Create
Serious Unintended Consequences
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the second in a series of commentaries for and against Ballot Proposition 1 that the Sentinel will run prior to the Nov. 6 election.
By Brenda Josephson
I am a proud conservationist. Living in this beautiful place at the edge of the wilderness demands that we conserve and protect it for future generations. Yet, I am voting NO on Ballot Measure 1. How do I reconcile those two viewpoints?
The meaning of the word “conservation” has morphed over the years. Merriam-Webster defines conservation as the “planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect.” In simpler terms, it means the sustainable use of natural resources.
Notice the word “use.” In Alaska, we use our resources. We catch and sell fish to world markets. Same with oil, minerals, and timber. Our state is famous for an abundance of resources, and Alaska has accumulated wealth because of them.
We need to keep it that way. Voluntarily locking up our resources is a bad idea, especially when doing so would create serious unintended consequences.
Ballot Measure 1 elevates the protection of one resource (fish) over all others. Here in Southeast, we love our salmon almost to the point of reverence, which is not a bad thing. It is an incredible, world-class resource about which we are rightfully proud. But we must also be practical. We can’t prevent communities from building safe and reliable roads and airstrips because they might run alongside fish habitat. That approach makes no sense, but it is exactly what the outside proponents of Ballot Measure 1 are asking us to do.
It can be hard to discern who is telling the truth when campaigns on both sides present contradicting “facts.” This is why I base my decision on what state government officials have to say about how Ballot Measure 1 will impact their operations. Alaska Fish & Game habitat permit division’s largest client is Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. ADOT develops the infrastructure that serves all Alaskans and provides us with efficient and safe access to goods and services.
In public comments ADOT has stated, “This proposal will have a direct impact in the time and cost it takes a project to be developed and put into construction.”* “The proposed language in the initiative limits the structural options available for ADOT engineers.”*
Off-site mitigation is also prohibited even in portions of the same water body. This could result in designs that are less safe and less resilient. In layman’s terms, that means any project in or near water (read: all of Southeast Alaska) just became significantly more expensive and time-consuming with increased maintenance needs. Why would we add more impediments to our communities when we already have so many unmet infrastructure needs?
Perhaps the most convincing argument to Vote NO on Ballot Measure 1 is that, “The ADF&G believes the current permitting process effectively protects anadromous fish habitat.” **
Alaska Fish and Game already takes a science-based approach to permitting, with stellar results. Our fisheries need help, research shows that mortality is occurring in the marine environment with changing ocean conditions (acidification, warming, illegal fishing), not disregard or neglect of our fresh water habitat. Yet Ballot Measure 1 does nothing to address the problems in the ocean.
In summary, Ballot Measure 1 is a solution looking for a problem. My love and dedication to our wonderful communities and my belief that we must protect our resources for sustainable use compels me to Vote NO, for all the reasons outlined above, and because we need to keep our communities moving forward.
*Citation: State of Alaska Legislature website:
http://www.akleg.gov/basis/Meeting/Detail?Meeting=SSTA%202018-07-20%2013:31#tab3_4
**Citation: State of Alaska website:
https://aws.state.ak.us/OnlinePublicNotices/Notices/Attachment.aspx?id=114005
–––––
Brenda Josephson lives in Haines, and recently retired as controller and compliance officer for Southeast Road Builders Inc. She has served on the Haines Borough Planning Commission, president of the Haines School Board, and is currently a member of the Haines Borough Assembly.
Books Benefit
Dear Editor: The Friends of Sitka Public Library raised $1,485 in its recent book sale. We did this working together with adult services librarian Margot O’Connell, director Kathryn Hurtley, and other library personnel. Money raised will be used to support Babies and Books and other literacy efforts in Sitka. We will also pay for author visits/programming and purchase items requested by the library.
Thanks to Sitka High School National Honor Society adviser Benjamin Cordero and Sitka AmeriCorps program coordinator Sarah Lawrie for encouraging students and volunteers to take part in the yearly sale. Special thanks to these folks for setting up, running the sale, and taking it down: Aaní Perkins, Pamela Ash, Mary Jo Lord-Wild, Abigail Fitzgibbon, Peggy Fedoroff, Emma Spencer, Juan Cediel, Max Johnson, Jose Rivera, Maija Nurmikko, Sana Alimohamed, Kathy Ingallinera, Emily Demmert, Jerry Dzugan, Beth Rhoads, Marjean Ragsdale, Kasiana Pittser, Hillary Seeland and Malin Marius.
The Friends has made several purchases with funds remaining after the remodel project. We will keep you updated as we continue to spend that money for the benefit of the library and Sitkans. Additions to the library include a subscription to the Newsbank news service, podcasting equipment, two AWE learning stations (computers) for the children’s room, and subscriptions to the Wall Street Journal and the Seattle Times.
Kari Sagel, president
Nicole Filipek, board member, commission liaison
House Debate
Dear Editor: I listened closely to both Rep. Kreiss-Tomkins and to Dr. Richard Wein, at the Sitka High School-sponsored question and answer opportunity Wednesday night.
I could not agree more with Dr. Wein that Alaska needs diversified industry. However, he gave no examples. To the contrary, he leaned on oil, on more drilling, on road expansion for logging, on fishing, and on the only non-extractive old standby, tourism. No new ideas there and one bad old idea. He thinks the hydro-electric project was wrong. Time will bear out that the dam is the basis for new industry.
Rep. Kreiss-Tomkins had no ideas for business. He needs to spend more time thinking about that. His focus was on better management of the Permanent Fund and of the few other assets that we do have.
Dr. Wein referred to his experiences as a surgeon. Not surprisingly, he respects technical cures for economic problems. He also disrespected politicians. While neither candidate offered economic solutions, I prefer Kreiss-Tomkins emphasis on management and on respect among opposing legislators. I do not see how Dr. Wein can get things done by thinking that he has special talent to cut through problems, reducing them to an established procedure. And how can he work with all the other rather baffled lawmakers when he disrespects them? I heard Kreiss-Tomkins showing leadership in at least working for agreement and, failing that, cooperation. We should keep Kreiss Tompkins on the job.
John Welsh
