Cost-benefits of coal mining warrant full review

Members of the Mat-Su Borough Assembly and interested residents will again come together Tuesday to weigh the merits of asking the state of Alaska to conduct a Comprehensive Health Impact Assessment (CHIA) for the mining of coalfields in the Matanuska Valley.

Introduced by Assemblyman Warren Keogh, who represents that region on the assembly, Resolution No. 12-108 asks the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services to conduct a CHIA for 31 square miles of land included in the Wishbone Hill, the Jonesville Mine and the Chickaloon Coal projects.

CHIAs are internationally recognized research and planning tools “by which a policy, program or project may be judged as to its potential effects on the health of a population, and the distribution of those effects within the population,” according to the World Health Organization.

Keogh introduced a similar resolution in June calling for a CHIA that was voted down 4-3. This was even after the Mat-Su Borough’s Health and Social Services Board recommended the in-depth impact assessment by an 8-1 vote May 2.

In that instance, Vern Halter voted with Jim Colver and Keogh in support of expanding the assessment, which Halter noted would not require the businesses to do anything. At that meeting, 15 residents testified on the resolution — 14 in favor and one opposed.

So whose was that one mighty opinion that could overpower the voices of 14 other people? Marvin Yoder, speaking on behalf of the Mat-Su Business Alliance. One voice from business was given more weight than 14 voices from residents who stand to be directly impacted by these mines.

The Mat-Su Borough is indeed open for business — even foreign companies whose interests and priorities regarding impacts on human health may differ from those of Alaska residents.

The day after that assembly vote, more than 70 local health care professionals sent a letter to the state of Alaska asking instead that it move forward with a CHIA of the proposed Wishbone Hill coal mine.

Why did these health professionals get involved? Because a rapid health assessment already complete listed seven of the eight categories with significant negative health effects, including water contamination, air pollution, noise pollution, mental health disturbance and traffic accidents. And it identified substantial data gaps for other crucial information, such as how mining would impact subsistence foods, potential surface water and groundwater contamination, noise, diesel exhaust, blowing coal dust and damage to houses from twice-daily blasting.

Today we join with those first 14 residents who testified in June and the more than 70 local health care professionals who signed that letter in asking for a CHIA. We want to know the positive and negative health, safety and socio-economic aspects of coal industry activity.

Folks in favor of and opposed to coal mining here allege many things about the possible impacts — or safety — of large-scale coal mining in a residential area. This is information we need as a community in order to conduct our own cost-benefit analysis of these projects.

Further, if proponents are right and these projects pose no costs, only benefits, then such a review will make their case ironclad.