Alaska fisheries are under threat from B.C. mining

Provincial rules won’t help those affected by pollution, writes Cynthia Wallesz

For two years, I’ve been learning about B.C.’s mining industry and how it is threatening water, ecosystems, salmon and jobs downstream in southeast Alaska.

It’s been shocking to realize the significant inadequacies of B.C.’s mining regulatory processes. For example, mining companies are not required to use best available technologies or practices to reduce risks, nor do they provide compensation to those affected by pollution from large-scale open-pit projects at the headwaters of world-class river systems.

These inadequacies were confirmed recently in an email I received from B.C. Mines Minister Bill Bennett in response to my question, “How would our fishing fleet be financially compensated if we suffered financial losses from real or perceived water quality contamination from B.C.’s projects?”

The minister wrote: “With respect to your specific question around financial losses from water quality contamination, British Columbia does not have legislation that specifically governs the provision of compensation of individuals and companies locates (sic) in the U.S.A. In such an event, compensation would need to be handled by agreement with the person or operators causing the pollution or through other means.”

A mining company agreeing to compensate affected Alaska fishermen and communities is at best unrealistic. Chieftain Metals Corp., owner of Tulsequah Chief project, recently defaulted on one of its loans. As the company experiences financial instability, its project leaks acid mine drainage into the Taku watershed, just a quick boat ride away from downtown Juneau.

Given what I have seen from B.C.’s regulatory agencies, it’s clear to me that the risks to southeast Alaska from our neighbours’ mining activities are real — and efforts to reduce associated risks and ensure compensation for affected parties is not going to happen if processes stay the same.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not against mining. In fact, I represent the interests of a commercial fishing fleet that, like the mining industry, extracts natural resources for money. All 473 of us want to continue our way of life by harvesting salmon in healthy waters.

The latest B.C. auditor general’s report finds the province’s mine reclamation fund is short $1 billion. On May 16, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs study reported that taxpayers are liable for more than $1.5 billion for environmental reclamation from mining projects — not the companies. The bottom line is that B.C. has no money to pay for mining disasters or compensate victims.

There is widespread support for federal action to address these concerns. The senators of Washington state recently wrote Secretary of State John Kerry calling for an International Joint Commission review under the Boundary Waters Treaty. Alaska’s congressional delegation wrote Kerry urging him to “utilize all measures at your disposal to address this issue at the international level” and recognized the limitations of Alaska/B.C. engagement, stating that national governments must have a role, noting IJC as a strong option.

As we gear up for another commercial salmon season in southeast Alaska, B.C. is planning for additional major mines in the transboundary region and we are still unprotected from these upstream threats.

So far, Alaska’s governor has focused on a memorandum of understanding and statement of co-operation with B.C., and although these efforts can help, such a document is not legally binding and does not address financial compensation and protection for Alaskans or our billion-dollar fishery.

I humbly urge federal officials on both sides of the border to work together for enforceable solutions that protect our shared waters. One way or another, Alaskans need the financial assurances that we deserve and that British Columbia, in the true spirit of being a responsible neighbour, should provide.

The bottom line is that B.C. has no money to pay for mining disasters.