On Aug. 26, Alaskans will vote in the primary election on an initiative that opponents say will kill large-scale mining in Alaska but supporters say will save Bristol Bay’s wild salmon streams from a potential toxic spill at the Pebble Mine.

Many voters are confused by the rash of opposing messages stemming from the debate over Ballot Measure 4, the Clean Water Initiative.

Supporters of the initiative say it is needed to protect Alaska’s wild salmon streams from the proposed Pebble Mine, a gold and copper deposit in Southwest Alaska.

Opponents claim the initiative poses a serious threat to Alaska’s economy and the mining industry.

On one side of the debate is Alaskans for Clean Water Inc., a group that includes commercial and sport fishermen, Alaska Natives, Native villages, lodge owners, hunters and others.

The group leading the opposition is Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown, which boasts the Alaska Federation of Natives, the state Chamber of Commerce, Native corporations, the Resource Development Council, the Miner’s Association and industry groups among its supporters.

The groups brought their debate to Kodiak Monday afternoon during a forum at the Kodiak Inn, providing little clarification on what has become a confounding issue to many voters.

Aurah Landau, the Southeast Alaska coordinator for Alaskans for Clean Water, presented the argument in favor of the initiative. Jason Brune of the Resource Development Council represented Alaskans against the Mining Shutdown.

“A lot of people think this is the Pebble Mine shutdown initiative,” Brune said. “Actually it’s the mining in Alaska shutdown initiative.”

Landau argued against that view.

“We want to support fish and fisheries. We don’t want to stop mining,” Landau said.

Under the initiative, no existing mines would be shut down, no mine expansion would be stopped, no “mom and pop” mines would be shut down and no recreational activities would be restricted, she said.

“It’s just really common sense,” Landau said. “(The initiative) simply says that new, large metallurgical mines in Alaska cannot release toxic chemicals into salmon spawning areas that will adversely impact those salmon.”

Brune said, “Our mission is the responsible development of Alaska’s natural resources. At no point would we ever take a position that would compromise one resource at the benefit of another.”

Brune emphasized that existing state and EPA guidelines are sufficient to protect fish and that the ballot measure is therefore unnecessary.

“The state sets those standards and works with the EPA to set those standards,” he said. “To say that there wouldn’t be something in place already to protect the salmon in the state is absurd.”

Brune added that potential mines could never proceed or acquire the necessary permits if they weren’t able to prove they could comply with the existing standards.

“Ultimately, mining has a significant impact economically for the state,” he said. “But none of that moves forward without being able to show that it can be done responsibly and without protecting the other resources that our state depends on.”

A major source of contention between the two sides is whether the language of the initiative as written is clear and binding or open to future interpretation by the courts.

“It is very poorly written, and it’s a blank sheet,” Brune said. “We don’t know what we’re voting on. The biggest concern is: How is a judge going to interpret it? Tomorrow, a different court might interpret it differently, and that’s what we’re really scared about. Undoubtedly, this will lead to litigation.”

Landau argued that the courts provided guidance on the initiative when the Alaska Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that the measure was constitutional.

“High-powered lawyers will always find ways to say that language is vague. We’re lucky in this case that there is clear direction from the courts, who did weigh in because it’s confusing, that any further interpretation of what this means is going to hinge on what Alaskan voters thought they were voting on. And that’s in the Division of Elections pamphlet,” she said. “It’s just crystal clear. It’s short and sweet.”

The measure applies only to new mines seeking permits in areas where there is salmon spawning, Landau said.

But that appears to be the problem with Pebble Mine.

“It’s all about Pebble,” Landau said. “Fifty-three percent of (Alaskans against the Mining Shutdowns) funding comes from the Pebble Partnership. This will require Pebble to meet requirements they don’t currently have to meet.”

Brune pointed out that while his group has spent about $9 million on advertising compared to Alaskans for Clean Water’s roughly $1.5 million, total anti-Pebble Mine advertising has run well over that amount in the past several years.

“There’s been three to four years of money spent on anti-Pebble Mine advertising,” he said. “Way over $10 million has been spent on trying to stop the Pebble Mine from moving forward. If Pebble can’t show they can do it responsibly, they shouldn’t be allowed to move forward.”

Each camp continued to accuse the other of using fear tactics and deliberately misleading voters.

“Nobody’s required to tell the truth in advertising,” Landau said. “They’re scaring people. If they confuse people enough, they will vote no.”

“There is confusion as to what it is,” Brune said. “(The initiative) arbitrarily overrides the process that we have in place already.”

Landau said that voters are capable of deciding for themselves “what is best for Alaska.”

“I think all of us are smart, independent people,” Landau said. “We can make up our own minds.”

Mirror writer Erik Wander can be reached via e-mail at ewander@kodiakdailymirror.com.