New bill would prohibit hard-rock metals mining in Alaska's Bristol Bay watershed
Braided wetlands and tundra in the Bristol Bay watershed are seen from the air on July 26, 2010. Seen here is Upper Talarik Creek, which flows into Lake Iliamna and then the Kvichak River before emptying into Bristol Bay. A new bill introduced on the last day of the Alaska Legislature's 2025 session would bar hard-rock metals mining in the Bristol Bay watershed. (Photo provided by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
Mere hours before he banged his gavel to adjourn this year's session of the Alaska House of Representatives, Speaker Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, introduced a bill to bar metals mining from the Bristol Bay watershed.
The measure, House Bill 233, would expand on the Environmental Protection Agency's 2023 decision prohibiting permitting of the controversial Pebble Project in the region. The Biden administration action, which followed up on a process started in the Obama administration, invoked a rarely used provision on the Clean Water Act to prevent development of the huge open-pit copper and gold mine planned for the region upstream from salmon-rich Bristol Bay.
Edgmon's bill would ban all metallic sulfide mining in the area designated as the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve, which encompasses state land in the Bristol Bay watershed.
Metallic sulfide mining, also known as hard-rock mining, is the type of mining that extracts elements like gold and copper from acid-generating rocks classified as sulfides. When these sulfides are processed, they commonly cause acid to drain out. It is a method distinct from placer mining, which sifts out metals from loose sediments. The copper and gold that would be produced at the Pebble project is held in sulfide ore and would be extracted through hard-rock mining.
The Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve was established by the Legislature in 1972 to prevent oil and gas development in the region. The effort was led by Jay Hammond, who was president of the state Senate at the time. He later became governor.
Under House Bill 223, the Hammond-championed prohibitions on petroleum development would be expanded to mining. The justifications for the 1972 action 'also warrant new protections to prevent hardrock mining activities that would risk polluting the region's river systems, ground water, aquifer systems,' as well as any drainages that connect to Bristol Bay's surface water, the bill's text says.
Edgmon is from the Bristol Bay region.
The bill will be considered next year, along with other measures still pending in the 34th Legislature.
Alannah Hurley, executive director of a consortium of Native tribal governments in the Bristol Bay region, said the bill would provide extra protection for EPA's action. That protection is needed because of 'the uncertainty that we're continuing to face' from litigation pressed by Pebble's sponsors, Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. and the Pebble Limited Partnership it owns, said Hurley, who is with United Tribes of Bristol Bay, an organization that has long opposed the Pebble project.
Northern Dynasty and the Pebble Limited Partnership have sued to overturn the 2023 EPA determination, and the case remains active. The state of Alaska, at the direction of Gov. Mike Dunleavy, has also sued the federal government over the action.
Hurley said that beyond upholding the EPA determination, the bill would prevent the development of other metals mines in the region, Hurley said. There are about 20 active claims that could be developed into large metals mines, though not as large as the proposed Pebble project, she said.
If the bill passes, 'we wouldn't have to face 20 other mining claims piecemeal over who knows how many decades,' she said.
While the bill is new, the effort behind it goes back a long time, Hurley said.
'This is something the tribes have been talking about for years. We need the EPA protection, but we also need legislation to really protect the watershed,' she said.
A legislative effort similar to House Bill 233 was mounted on the federal level by former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola, D-Alaska. She introduced the Bristol Bay Protection Act a year ago to codify the EPA's Clean Water Act determination barring a Pebble-type mine from being permitted in the Bristol Bay watershed. The act died in committee, and Peltola lost her seat in November to current Rep. Nick Begich, R-Alaska.
The tribes and other Pebble opponents have thus turned their attention to the Legislature now that Peltola is no longer in the U.S. House, Hurley said.
'The fact that she wasn't reelected has frustrated expectations that we can make any progress with Congress,' Hurley said.
There have been previous efforts in the Alaska Legislature, as well. In 2015, Rep. Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage, introduced a measure, House Bill 119, that would require legislative approval for any large-scale metallic sulfide mine in the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve. It failed to reach the House floor. Josephson introduced a similar bill, House Bill 14, in 2017. It also died in committee.
Josephson is a co-sponsor of Edgmon's new bill.
Representatives of Northern Dynasty and the Pebble Limited Partnership were not available to comment on the new bill.
Dunleavy, who has been supportive of the Pebble project, has not taken a position, said his spokesperson, Jeff Turner. The bill was just introduced, so the governor has not had time to review it, Turner said.
'As a general rule, the Governor's office does not comment on legislation until it has passed and been transmitted to his office,' he said by email.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Yahoo
Trump Just Revoked California's EV Rules. How Much Is California To Blame?
President Donald Trump just revoked California's permission to enforce its nation-leading clean-car rules — and Mary Nichols understands why. "No one likes being regulated," she told me ahead of Thursday's Oval Office signing ceremony. Nichols knows that better than almost anyone. As head of California's Air Resources Board for 17 years, she brought the world's biggest automakers to heel using the state's unique authority to go further than the federal government in setting vehicle emissions standards. It's those same automakers who lobbied Trump to "rescue the U.S. auto industry from destruction by terminating California's electric vehicle mandate once and for all," as Trump put it Thursday. It didn't have to get to this point. California officials had been in talks with automakers prior to the November election about how to keep them on board, but the state overplayed its hand, Nichols said. "Many people were acting on the assumption that it was going to be the Democrats continuing in power," she said. "So the state felt like they had all the cards in their hand, and then after the election, it was pretty hard to reset the conversation." To hear Nichols tell it, California may have gone too far this time in nudging the industry to ever-higher sales of zero-emission vehicles. The rules would have required automakers to hit increasing percentages — 35 percent by model year 2026 and 68 percent by model year 2030 — before reaching 100 percent of new-car sales in 2035. Maybe that would have worked if it were just about California. But a dozen other states are signed on to California's targets, and they have been slower and less generous with incentives and EV charging infrastructure. Where California has more than a quarter of its new car sales coming from EVs, New Jersey is at 15 percent, and New York is under 12 percent, according to the industry's latest figures. "They were definitely having issues with the California program because they didn't think they could meet the sales numbers in the mandate, especially [Gov. Gavin] Newsom's target of nothing but ZEVs with a deadline attached to it," Nichols said. "That was scary, and even the interim targets were going to be hard to meet." The pendulum has swung against California before: The George W. Bush administration was the first to attempt to deny California's permission from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to require automakers to sell increasing percentages of zero-emission vehicles, and Trump went further in his first term by attempting to revoke the state's already-issued authority. But Republicans had never resorted to doing it through Congress, via an untested maneuver that congressional watchdogs have warned is likely illegal but that still drew 35 Democratic votes in the House and one in the Senate (Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), in the tradition of Detroit's John Dingell). It's a far cry from the bipartisan consensus that reigned when President Richard Nixon famously signed the Clean Air Act, which set federal air pollution levels for the first time but gave California permission to continue going further, owing to its decade-plus of vehicle emissions rules aimed at the smoggy Los Angeles basin. The automakers have been steadily lobbying against the rules since then, with a brief ceasefire from 2009-16, when ten automakers and the United Auto Workers signed a nonaggression pact in President Barack Obama's Rose Garden with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the EPA. That it happened at the same time that the federal government was taking an equity stake in General Motors was no coincidence, said Nichols, who helped broker the pact. "They saved them from bankruptcy," she said. California has less recourse this time around. Where Newsom signed deals in 2019 with Ford, Volkswagen, Honda, BMW and Volvo to abide by the state's rules even in the event of federal cancellation, he now only has Stellantis, which signed a separate agreement last year that goes through model year 2030. And several of the state's allies are peeling off. California had 12 other states signed on to follow its lead as of last year, but it now has 10, after Republican-led Virginia dropped out and Vermont delayed enforcement by 19 months. And Democrats are getting cold feet, too: Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed an executive order in April delaying enforcement, and Democratic lawmakers in New York introduced a bill this year to delay their participation by two years. (California and the other 10 states immediately sued Thursday to preserve the emissions standards.) "If it was only California, I think [automakers] wouldn't have been as eager to jump in on the federal level and work with the Republicans, but it's the fact it's the other states that had the California standards that were killing them, especially New York," Nichols said. That echoes the automakers' argument. "The problem really isn't California," John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said in a statement after the Senate's vote last month to overturn the rules. "It's the 11 states that adopted California's rules without the same level of readiness for EV sales requirements of this magnitude."
Politico
14-06-2025
- Politico
Trump Just Revoked California's EV Rules. How Much Is California To Blame?
President Donald Trump just revoked California's permission to enforce its nation-leading clean-car rules — and Mary Nichols understands why. 'No one likes being regulated,' she told me ahead of Thursday's Oval Office signing ceremony. Nichols knows that better than almost anyone. As head of California's Air Resources Board for 17 years, she brought the world's biggest automakers to heel using the state's unique authority to go further than the federal government in setting vehicle emissions standards. It's those same automakers who lobbied Trump to 'rescue the U.S. auto industry from destruction by terminating California's electric vehicle mandate once and for all,' as Trump put it Thursday. It didn't have to get to this point. California officials had been in talks with automakers prior to the November election about how to keep them on board, but the state overplayed its hand, Nichols said. 'Many people were acting on the assumption that it was going to be the Democrats continuing in power,' she said. 'So the state felt like they had all the cards in their hand, and then after the election, it was pretty hard to reset the conversation.' To hear Nichols tell it, California may have gone too far this time in nudging the industry to ever-higher sales of zero-emission vehicles. The rules would have required automakers to hit increasing percentages — 35 percent by model year 2026 and 68 percent by model year 2030 — before reaching 100 percent of new-car sales in 2035. Maybe that would have worked if it were just about California. But a dozen other states are signed on to California's targets, and they have been slower and less generous with incentives and EV charging infrastructure. Where California has more than a quarter of its new car sales coming from EVs, New Jersey is at 15 percent, and New York is under 12 percent, according to the industry's latest figures. 'They were definitely having issues with the California program because they didn't think they could meet the sales numbers in the mandate, especially [Gov. Gavin] Newsom's target of nothing but ZEVs with a deadline attached to it,' Nichols said. 'That was scary, and even the interim targets were going to be hard to meet.' The pendulum has swung against California before: The George W. Bush administration was the first to attempt to deny California's permission from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to require automakers to sell increasing percentages of zero-emission vehicles, and Trump went further in his first term by attempting to revoke the state's already-issued authority. But Republicans had never resorted to doing it through Congress, via an untested maneuver that congressional watchdogs have warned is likely illegal but that still drew 35 Democratic votes in the House and one in the Senate (Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), in the tradition of Detroit's John Dingell). It's a far cry from the bipartisan consensus that reigned when President Richard Nixon famously signed the Clean Air Act, which set federal air pollution levels for the first time but gave California permission to continue going further, owing to its decade-plus of vehicle emissions rules aimed at the smoggy Los Angeles basin. The automakers have been steadily lobbying against the rules since then, with a brief ceasefire from 2009-16, when ten automakers and the United Auto Workers signed a nonaggression pact in President Barack Obama's Rose Garden with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the EPA. That it happened at the same time that the federal government was taking an equity stake in General Motors was no coincidence, said Nichols, who helped broker the pact. 'They saved them from bankruptcy,' she said. California has less recourse this time around. Where Newsom signed deals in 2019 with Ford, Volkswagen, Honda, BMW and Volvo to abide by the state's rules even in the event of federal cancellation, he now only has Stellantis, which signed a separate agreement last year that goes through model year 2030. And several of the state's allies are peeling off. California had 12 other states signed on to follow its lead as of last year, but it now has 10, after Republican-led Virginia dropped out and Vermont delayed enforcement by 19 months. And Democrats are getting cold feet, too: Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed an executive order in April delaying enforcement, and Democratic lawmakers in New York introduced a bill this year to delay their participation by two years. (California and the other 10 states immediately sued Thursday to preserve the emissions standards.) 'If it was only California, I think [automakers] wouldn't have been as eager to jump in on the federal level and work with the Republicans, but it's the fact it's the other states that had the California standards that were killing them, especially New York,' Nichols said. That echoes the automakers' argument. 'The problem really isn't California,' John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said in a statement after the Senate's vote last month to overturn the rules. 'It's the 11 states that adopted California's rules without the same level of readiness for EV sales requirements of this magnitude.'
E&E News
13-06-2025
- E&E News
House Republicans try again on water permitting bills
Republicans on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee introduced 15 water-related bills Thursday, targeting everything from the length of federal permitting to the types of water resources protected by the Clean Water Act. The bills would benefit oil and gas companies, farming interests, homebuilders, water utilities and others who say that environmental reviews and long permitting timelines are stifling development. They were introduced by Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chair Mike Collins (R-Ga.) and Reps. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), David Rouzer (R-N.C.), Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.), Pete Stauber (R-Minn.), Burgess Owens (R-Utah), Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.), Jefferson Shreve (R-Ind.), Dave Taylor (R-Ohio) and Jimmy Patronis (R-Fla.). Advertisement 'The Clean Water Act was intended to protect water quality, support healthy communities, and balance the demands of economic growth across the United States,' Graves said in a statement.
