Prop. 2 a ‘playground for lawyers’

It has been said that Ballot Measure 2 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I agree.

In my estimation, Ballot Measure 2 does not simply reinstate Alaska’s tested coastal zone management plan, which expired in 2011. Rather, it spawns a completely new many headed bureaucracy, seats an unelected policy board and creates a playground for lawyers.

First, a little background. The Coastal Zone Management Program emerged early on, predictably, as one of the most divisive issues of the 27th Legislature. Late in the 2011 regular session, after much back and forth and a robust public process, a number of senators and representatives joined the administration, the public and industry representatives to draft a compromise, House Bill 106, that extended the looming CZM sunset date.

When HB 106 unanimously passed the state House in 2011, it enjoyed the broad support of many constituencies, balanced competing needs and adhered to the governor’s guiding principles for potential changes to the program.

I was prepared to support that bill when it moved to the Senate.

However, when a furtively drafted, utterly changed committee version of that bill hit the Senate floor in the special session, I voted against it because it had suddenly devolved into a major overreach with the potential to undermine our state’s economy.

The Alaska Constitution mandates the state’s natural resources shall be made available for the maximum use consistent with the public interest — your interest, your children’s interest and your grandchildren’s interest. Indeed, our very economy rests on the development of those public resources. Alaska’s current, court-tested regulatory process for permitting those resource development projects already protects our environment, human health and subsistence values with some of the strongest rules in the nation.

Last month, I attended the state’s official public hearing on the initiative hosted in the Mat-Su Valley by Lt. Governor Treadwell. At the end of the evening, after listening to the commentary, I felt more strongly than ever about my “no” vote.

I would like to outline just a few of my concerns:

• Measure 2’s 13-member appointed board, which would be unaccountable to the voters, would be empowered to set statewide coastal policy.

• This policy board, using an undefined set of rules and unidentified timelines, coupled with anecdotal information placed on par with scientific and technical expertise, could pile a whole slew of confusing new state and local standards on top of our already established, extensive state and federal permitting regime.

• Measure 2 provides opportunities for local control over the coastal management program rather than for local input. There is a difference. I certainly support gathering meaningful local input, but Alaska needs a predictable process that does not allow undue district involvement in areas that are already fully regulated by state and federal law.

• Under the initiative, local districts could adopt enforceable policies to effectively veto, halt or delay projects that are in the best interest of the state as a whole and that fully comply with all state and federal requirements.

• In many ways, Measure 2 takes a shotgun approach when a rifle would do. For example, it misleads voters into thinking that, if passed, resource development project applicants would now sprint through the permitting process. Not so. If permitting timeframes are the rub, then let’s simply stand up a better permitting coordination organization. Or let’s fire the people who can’t get the permits processed. Devising an entirely new multi-layered statewide bureaucracy with overly broad powers is not the answer to a faster process.

For these reasons and more, I join a number of others, including the Resource Development Council, Alaska Oil and Gas Association, Alaska Miners Association, Council of Alaska Producers, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, Associated General Contractors of Alaska and the Mat-Su Borough Assembly in opposing Ballot Measure 2.

I applaud the Mat- Su Borough mayor and assembly for their collective wisdom in unanimously adopting Resolution No. 12-085 opposing Ballot Measure 2. Your state and local elected officials must constantly work together to uphold Alaska’s Constitution and to defend your interests while wisely and carefully developing the commonly held resources that drive our economy and create jobs.

In summation, deeply flawed Ballot Measure 2 will have a chilling effect on resource development and is bad for our state’s economy.

I encourage a “no” vote on Aug.28.

Charlie Huggins holds a seat in the Alaska Senate representing the Mat-Su Valley.