Manchin - Thinking Out Loud

[I live in Alaska.  I've passed through West Virginia long ago.  I have no inside knowledge about Manchin.  Just general thoughts about how people behave in political organizations.]

Manchin and Sinema keep trading places in the headlines as the person who is holding climate change and other critical issues hostage.  

Since I live in an oil state, I have an inkling of the pressure that any US Senator from Alaska feels - Democrat or Republican.  When Mark Begich was the Democratic Senator from Alaska, he supported oil development.  It's part of the job of an Alaskan Senator.  Or at least the perception is that if you aren't an oil supporter, you won't get elected.  Oil money will sink your campaign.  So Alaskan Democrats might lobby a Democratic Senator on climate change, but we know oil interests lobby harder.  Sen. Murkowski understands the importance of climate change and bows to oil and GOP pressure.  

So I understand that Manchin needs to stand strong on coal.  He stands strong with the coal industry and the jobs it brings his state.  Even if the demand for coal is waning.  Even if many coal miners die a premature death from black lung disease.  In Alaska oil doesn't actually employ that many people compared to other sectors.  And almost 40% commute from Outside for one or two week rotations. But for the last 40 years it has paid for state government.  Whenever there is any opposition to what the oil companies want, they spend massive amounts of money to sway public opinion that only oil can keep Alaskans employed and enjoying the lifestyle they've come to expect.  Even if it's not true. 

I saw a Tweet yesterday responding to someone complaining that Biden couldn't deliver major legislation the way LBJ or FDR could.  The responders pointed out that LBJ had a 66-34 Democratic majority going into the 1964 and a 68 -32 majority after the election.  There were lots of Democrats from the South that wouldn't vote for the landmark Civil Rights legislation.  LBJ needed Republican votes to beat the filibuster, which in those days you had to actually carry out by speaking 24 hours straight or longer.  But when you were done, the vote was taken and it wasn't 2/3.  Today you just push a button and kill the legislation.  Biden has 48 Democrats and 2 Independents and 50 Republicans. He has no wiggle room whatsoever. 

One could say that by holding up critical climate change legislation to prolong the coal industry's slow death, Manchin is condemning millions of people around the world to premature deaths.  Not just because of this one bill, but because if the US falters on this, then it will give other countries around the world an excuse to go slower too.  And the slower we go, the more people will be displaced and die because of how climate change will play out.  More violent storms.  More drought causing massive fires and forcing people off the land their families have farmed for generations.  More wars to fight for scarce resources like water, arable land, livable temperatures.  And it wouldn't be wrong to say - and history books might - that Manchin was the person who did this.

But Manchin is only the focal point because of other problems as well:

• Our US Senate is grossly unrepresentative.  Because every state, no matter the population, has two senators, small, rural states have more more senators than their small populations deserve.  Alaska, with 733,391 people has two Senators just like California with almost 40 million people  - 54 times as many people!  Democrats in the Senate represent 43 million more people than the Republican Senators represent.  
• There are 50 Republican Senators who aren't being put in the spotlight like Manchin.  What are they doing?  There isn't one who has the courage to vote yes?
• Minority leader McConnell could work out a deal to get this passed.  But making Democrats look bad is his main objective.  That and voter suppression is the only way Republicans can stay in power at all for now.  

I don't know what other pressures Manchin is under.  It's clear he's not looking at his situation in a long term world survival perspective.  He's up for reelection in 2024.  Coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels and it's going to end soon,  It's already way down in production and use,

So what must be going on behind the scenes? Some (not mutually exclusive) possibilities.  

1. He needs to publicly (in West Virginia) appear to be the man who stood up to protect West Virginia's coal,
2. He needs to protect the coal interests of his major financial backers.
3. He wants to protect his own financial interests in coal.  

Numbers 2 and 3 are harder to make deals on.  If it were only #1, it would seem like the Democrats could do a number of things that benefit West Virginia in exchange for his vote like:

1. exempt West Virginia from restrictions on coal- though if power plants are giving incentives for clean fuel, that would mean they would move away from West Virginia coal even if it were exempted.
2. offer boosts to care for coal mine related health problems for West Virginia
3. offer job retraining programs for coal miners and incentives for businesses in West Virginia to hire them and/or incentives for companies outside of West Virginia to relocate or open work places in WV
4. make a big public show of all the sacrifices Democrats had to make to satisfy Manchin for WV consumption

He's already getting lots of attention for standing firm for West Virginia's interests (whether that's true or not, it's the perception) so I'm guessing it's pressure from businesses more than voters.  Or, businesses that will spend money in the next election supporting or opposing Manchin.  While he first got elected by a strong majority in 2012, in 2018 he squeaked by with less than 50% of the vote.  

But life oddly thrusts people into the spotlight for different reasons.  Had Georgia not elected two Democratic Senators, Manchin would be much less important.  Maybe invisible.  And people really mad at Manchin have to remember if he weren't a Democrat, McConnell would still be the Senate Majority leader.  

I'd also note that we see many headlines about Manchin as well as those about Biden being in trouble because conflict and drama attract eyeballs, so the media push the conflict and use competitive sports metaphors as a way of getting more advertisers.  

New Inventions At The Invention Fair

The conference this weekend set me behind on lots of things here.  So let me catch up on the invention fair at my granddaughter's school.  This is a K-6 optional program where all the kids are in two giant connected rooms.  There's an emphasis on independent learning and working cooperatively.     This is part of the local school district.  Sort of like Steller in Anchorage, or Polaris.

They have a three year cycle:  1.  science fair; 2.  environmental project; and 3.  invention fair.

All the kids have to come up with a problem.  Figure out a solution to the problem (the invention).  The presentation at the fair is supposed to cover the process - problem, solution, steps to the solution, materials used, etc.

So here are a few.  I don't post pictures of kids except in rare circumstances with parent permission so the focus is on the project here.

This is a special backpack to carry school papers, using a paper sized folder so papers don't get all wrinkled on the way to and from school.


I need to say there were maybe 50 or 60 projects by first graders to six graders.

This one quantified the number of plastic, non-biodegradable sandwich bags a kid uses a year and talks about the time it takes for the plastic to degrade (400-100 years), the toxic materials in the plastic bag you wrap your sandwich in, and the harm bags do to the animals that ingest them.

And I'm afraid I can't remember the edible material they used as sandwich bags.  It seems that side of the-poster is blocked by a head.  It isn't seaweed because I thought of that as a possibility and they used something else.

This one was my personal favorite.  (After my granddaughter's, of course.)  The inventor explained that her mom kept getting on her for leaving the light on in her room.  So she designed a little M&M holder (in the middle)  contraption to put above the light switch.

And when you turn off the light switch, it causes an M&M to drop out to reward the energy conscious kid.

Here you can see an M&M just released from turning off the switch.





All the kids were at the projects and eager to explain them in detail to anyone who asked.  Even people who didn't ask but were close by.  I know that some of these kids would not willingly talk to a strange adult, but they were so into their projects they all just wanted to tell me everything.






The student who made the Mopping Slippers has a dog that regularly comes into the house with muddy feet.  So she made these slippers with sponges and scrubbers on the bottom that she can wear that help clean up the mess when she walks around.  (She being the student, not the dog.)

I did ask whether the dog jumps on her bed.  She sighed, said yes, but you just have to wash the sheets.

This was another popular invention - a new cookie recipe.  She tried a number of different new types of cookies and as you can see on the poster, Mango won.

Not only is she a good inventor (no one else seemed to think about inventing a new recipe) but also a good marketer.  She had pieces of the mango cookies there to taste.  And I can vouch for these cookies.

This student's problem related to reading in the dark.  So she invented a book mark that had a light on it.

You can see it at the bottom.


Another student had a very similar idea.  He said when he wanted to read at night in bed under the cover, he could never find the light.  So he invented a strap that goes around the book - which I think could also be used as a book mark - that holds a small light.

Another book related invention solved the problem of arms getting tired hold the book.  He took a bike helmet and put two extensions and connected them to the sides of the helmet.  At the end, they had clips to hold a book.  So you could sit with the book held out about 15 inches in front of you.

And this student enthusiastically explained his project.  When I jumped with his skateboard, it often falls away and he falls off.  So he invented a magnet to attach to his shoes and some metal on the skateboard.  He demonstrated the electromagnet he made with the battery and the nail wrapped in wire.  He could then turn the magnet on and off in his hand.

And finally my granddaughter's invention.  Her problem was that her arms get cold, so she wanted to invent arm warmers for her forearms, sort of like leg warmers.  She used toilet paper rolls (with a slit so they could stretch for bigger forearms) and material from old pants and tights to wrap around the rolls.

As demonstrated in this project, the instructions were to recycle materials for the poster boards and most projects did that.

This is a reminder that if you let kids chase what they're interested in, they've got all kinds of creativity and enthusiasm.

Fact Checking The Truman Socialism Meme

This post follows up yesterday's on Bernie Sanders.  I saw this poster the other day:

I had two immediate thoughts:

1. Socialism has been a Republican scare word for a long time
2. Did Truman really say this?

A quick google search found that both Snopes and Professor Buzzkill say yes, it's really from Truman.  But Buzzkill also tells us he's relying on Snopes.



So I went to the Harry S Truman library (online) and found an itinerary of his train trip in New York which puts him in Syracuse on October 11, 1952.  (It's always a good sign to have a place and date with a quote.)

 I found another  page called:

The Old President as Campaigner, 1952-1972

The speeches listed were for much of Truman's whistle-stop train campaign for Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson for president in 1952 against General Eisenhower.  But mostly in the west, then back to Ohio.  Even to Buffalo, New York.  But nothing on Syracuse.  So I looked at a couple of the other speeches to see if maybe he had repeated this thought on the trip and found this one that had the theme of Republicans calling public dams socialism.

From the Harry S Truman library, document called Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Oregon and California
October 3, 1952

All over the West, now, we are checking floods and turning water into storage places, where it can be used to make power and to irrigate the land. That is what we are doing here at Shasta. That's what will be done soon at Folsom Dam. We are doing the same thing at Bonneville and Grand Coulee, at Hungry Horse Dam in Montana where I stopped the other day, at the Tennessee Valley dams back East, and at Boulder Dam in the Southwest.
I call it Boulder Dam, but the Republicans prefer the title Hoover Dam. They changed the name, back in the 80th Congress--and that's the only contribution to the power field that the 80th Congress made.
You know the Republicans puzzle me sometimes. They are always saying that when we build these dams to produce public power, that's socialism. But they still wanted to name that dam for President Hoover. So there it stands on the Colorado River, a magnificent monument to "creeping socialism," and the name of it is Hoover Dam. Now, I think that's kind of funny.  (emphasis added)

The Syracuse Speech wasn't on the page of rear platform remarks.

So I put Syracuse October 10, 1952 into the Truman Library website's search.  And pulled up Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks New York.    It matches the itinerary above and starts in Buffalo with the first stop in Batavia, New York at 10:35am, then goes to Rochester, New York at 11:30am.  Next is what I was looking for - Syracuse, New York at 1:25pm.  And it continues for the rest of the day this way.  The rain stops, he gives a speech, then train heads off to the next stop.  And the speeches aren't the same.  Even though there were no social media to catch candidates making the same speech everywhere.

Here's the whole Syracuse speech from that page: (I've added emphasis to get to the issue of socialism as a favorite Republican slur.)

"[3.] SYRACUSE, NEW YORK (Near station, 1:25 p.m.)
I am happy to be here today again. You gave me a wonderful reception 4 years ago, even if it was raining cats and dogs all the time I was here.
This year, I am not campaigning for myself. I am out working for a new man on the Democratic ticket, my good friend Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. Adlai Stevenson has an outstanding record of public service. He is a man the people can trust.
I understand that you people here are really to be congratulated. I am told that Thomas Corcoran is the first Democratic mayor your city has had in 24 years, and I congratulate you on it.
Now this year you have a chance to follow that excellent example by sending Arthur McGuire to the House, and John Cashmore to the Senate to really represent you in the Congress as you should be.
I have been traveling for 2 weeks now, through about 20 States. I have seen a lot of this country, and I can tell you this great Nation of ours is in good shape. Never has there been as much growth or so much activity as there is today. That is true up and down this land of ours, just as it is here in this great State of New York.
Private enterprise is confident of the future. Large and small businesses are enjoying good profits. Their customers have money, because we have good farm prices and good wages, and steady jobs for all who want them.
We have almost forgotten that there can be such things as mass unemployment, bank failures, dollar-a-day wages, and 30-cent wheat. Those things have long been banished, along with the Republicans who brought them upon us.
Now, what is the reason for this confidence and this prosperity? It is very, very simple. The programs of the Federal Government in the past 20 years have made America a land of individual security, and at the same time a land of tremendous opportunity.
In these 20 years the Democratic Party has shown that individual security and opportunity go together. They must be worked for together, and the Democrats know how to do it.
The Republican Party in Congress has opposed almost all our programs to help the economic life of the country. The Republican Party has blindly turned its back on the tradition of public action for the public good.
I wonder why they have done that? Well, it is because the Republican Party has become a collection of special interest groups. A special interest group, by definition, can never see beyond the limits of its own greed for the almighty dollar.
The insurance companies, back in 1935 and 1936, couldn't see anything in social security beyond the fact they would not be writing the insurance policies. So they were against it--and they got the Republican Party against it.
The utility companies couldn't see anything in our great public power projects beyond the fact that private companies would not make a profit on the power. So they were against these projects, and automatically the Republican Party came out against them, too. Al Smith and Franklin Roosevelt taught you people all about that, many years ago.
The real estate lobby couldn't see anything in low-cost public housing beyond the fact that houses were going to be built and their members would not make any money out of them. So they were against public housing, and automatically the Republican Party came out against public housing.
And so it goes, down through the whole list. The policies of the Republican Party are the total of all the negative attitudes of all the special groups that put money into and pull the strings for the Republican Party.
Now, this year, the special interest groups that are in the Republican Party have as their candidate a man who has been in the Army and out of civilian life for over 40 years. Until last June, he had lived the specialized life of the soldier, under orders all the time.
The great issues that mean bread and butter to a lot of us, have passed him by completely. He has had the cares of an Army officer, but not those of a civilian trying to make a living. He has never met a payroll in his life, nor carried a precinct--and he doesn't know a special interest lobby when he sees one.
Now this is just the kind of man the special interests can move in on, and take over. And that is exactly what they have been doing. The General told the Republican Convention in July that he would lead them on a "great crusade." But he did not tell them what the crusade was going to be about.
Like all good generals, he was waiting for his objective to be set by higher authority. He was ready to lead the troops, but he didn't know what the campaign was for. That was a problem that he as a military man had never had to decide for himself before, so the Republican Old Guard moved in and wrote his orders for him.
The directive was drafted by Senator Taft at that famous breakfast in New York City a few weeks ago. Senator Taft left that meeting and told the press what the General stands for. Taft explained that the great issue in this campaign is "creeping socialism." Now that is the patented trademark of the special interest lobbies. Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan "Down With Socialism" on the banner of his "great crusade," that is really not what he means at all.
What he really means is, "Down with Progress--down with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal," and "down with Harry Truman's fair Deal." That is what he means.
Now, it is a sad thing to see this man led around by those of little faith and no vision. It is a sad thing to see this man betraying his principles, deserting his friends, all for the sake of the votes he hopes to gain from Taft and Jennet and McCarthy.
This campaign has already demonstrated that a military man should stick to his profession. We do not need any additional proof.
I can think of no worse combination in the White House than a military man, ignorant of all our problems, surrounded and controlled by the most backward-looking politicians in our national life.
My friends, don't turn the country over to that Republican combination. Look out for your own interests. You are the Government. The Constitution of the United States says the power of the Government in this great Nation of ours shall rest in the people. And when you exercise that power, you can only do it by votes.
When you go to the polls on the 4th of November and exercise the power of government-which is in you--you must look out for your own interests, you must look out for the interests of this great Nation, you must look out for the interests of the world as a whole--the free countries as a whole, for which we are now responsible.
I urge you--study the issues. Read the record. Read the record of both parties-the Republicans in the Congress and the Democrats in the Congress--because they are the ones that make the policy. It is not made on the stump.
The record I am pointing to is a record that has been in your interest. The record these gentlemen are talking about doesn't exist--for they haven't any record, except what is bad for the people.
Go to the polls now and exercise your authority as the power in the Government. Send Adlai Stevenson to the White House, and we will have 4 more years of good government.
Thank you very much."

So there it is.  From the Truman Library itself.  (By 2024 are people going to create fake websites to archive fake speeches?  Maybe, but I'm fairly confident this is the real thing.)

I'd note that at the stop at Utica (all the speeches are at the same link) he talks about a graduate of Utica's Hamilton College, Ambassador Jessup:

While Ambassador Jessup was on an overseas assignment aimed at curbing Soviet expansion, he was viciously attacked by Senator McCarthy. That was in 1950--which was not a presidential election year. In that year, the president of Columbia University, who is now the Republican candidate for President of the United States, sprang to Jessup's defense. This is what he wrote in 1950 to Philip Jessup, a member of his own faculty who was being unjustly attacked-and I quote from the General's letter:
"No one . . ."--this is a quotation from General Eisenhower's letter--"No one who has known you can for a moment question the depth or sincerity of your devotion to the principles of Americanism." That is the end of the quote.
Now the president of Columbia University knew in 1950 that McCarthy's attack was false and without foundation, just as McCarthy's attacks on other loyal public servants have been. If he needed any further proof of the kind of man McCarthy is, he certainly found it in the vile attack McCarthy made on Gen. George C. Marshall. . .

The Republican candidate knows, or he ought to know, how completely dishonest Joe McCarthy is. He ought to despise McCarthy, just as I expected him to--and just as I do.
Now, in his bid for votes, he has endorsed Joe McCarthy for reelection--and humbly thanked him for riding on his train.

Not unlike the change among current Republican Senators who vilified Trump before the nomination and now are his most loyal supporters.

I also noticed this discussion of immigration that is still very topical today.

 In Buffalo, New York, October 9, 1952

". . . This National Origin Quota System is a Republican invention. It was conceived and written into law under a Republican President and a Republican Congress in the 1920's. It is based on a discredited and un-American theory of racial superiority. That theory considers the so-called Nordics from England and Northern Europe to be superior to persons born in Italy, Greece, Czechoslovakia, Poland, or any other country of Southern or Eastern Europe. It's all wrong.
Now the Republicans took full credit for this discriminatory policy. They boasted of it, as one of their achievements, in their 1932 platform.
It is, of course, necessary to regulate the flow of immigration and to have some kind of limitation on numbers. It is also necessary to exclude undesirable individuals. But I think it is un-American to exclude a qualified, worthy individual just because he comes from Poland or Italy or Hungary. And that is exactly what happens under this Republican law.
The policies of the Republican Party haven't changed very much since they wrote this law in 1924. Let me prove that to you.
After the Second World War, I wanted to do something to help the millions of uprooted and homeless persons in Europe. At my urging, the 80th Congress adopted the Displaced Persons Act. That was necessary to get around the restrictions of the National Origin Quota System, and let a substantial number of those people in. But the 80th Congress [Republican] wrote in to the Displaced Persons Act provisions that deliberately discriminated against Catholics and Jews. "

You can listen to the whole speech here.  This quote starts about 12:15 on the audio.   An interesting contrast to speeches today.

The Basic Plan To Save The Planet As We Know It

Here's a pretty much random quote.  I just opened the book and started reading and found this interesting, but I'm sure I could do that with almost any page in this book.

"Most landfill content is organic matter:  food scraps, yard trimmings, junk wood, wastepaper.  At first, aerobic bacteria decompose these materials, but as layers of garbage get compacted and covered - and ultimately sealed beneath a landfill cap - oxygen is depleted.  In its absence, anaerobic bacteria take over, and decomposition produces biogas, a roughly equal blend of carbon dioxide and methane accompanied by a smattering of other gases.  Carbon dioxide would be part of nature's cycles, but the methane is anthropogenic, created because we dump organic waste into sanitary landfills.  Ideally, we'd do it differently.  Paper would be diverted for recycling and food scraps sent to composting or run through methane digesters.  When they are not entombed, these wastes can create real value.  But as long as landfills are piling up, we must manage the methane coming out of them.  Even if we stopped landfilling immediately, existing sites would continue polluting for decades to come."

Landfill Methane is #58 in Paul Hawken's (editor) Drawdown:  The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed To Reverse Global Warming.   

The book's premise is that we have to cut back - drawdown - on carbon emissions.  And not only is this possible, but it's a great opportunity to rethink how we do everything which will lead to a better life for all.

He breaks down that overwhelming goal into more manageable tasks.  If you wanted to climb the highest peak in North America - Denali - you'd also have to break that overwhelming goal into smaller doable tasks.

After almost six years of monthly Citizen Climate Lobby (CCL) meetings, I understand that the biggest obstacle to cutting back on carbon emissions is people's belief that it can't be done, or that it can't be done without ruining our economy and way of life.  I understand that both of those beliefs are wrong. Many, many people are working on ways to change how humans get and use energy.  Reversing our carbon use is very doable and it will make life better and create lots of jobs.  BUT it will force change on many people as some kinds of work disappears and new kinds arrive.

But as our current national attack by hurricanes shows us, the rules of climate are changing.  100 year, 500 year, 1000 year floods are happening with a frequency that shows the old equations are no longer valid.  Global warming is changing the conditions of earth,  giving us more frequent and more powerful storms.

Paul Hawken seen from Anchorage CCL meeting Aug 2017

So last month, Paul Hawkens was the speaker at the monthly CCL speaker.  Local chapters around the world connect by video conference.

 I took notes and was duly impressed, but never managed to post about it.  (You can see the video of the meeting here - the Paul Hawken intro comes at 2 minutes in and he begins a little after 3 minutes.)

The book has 80 ranked 'solutions divided into seven 'sectors.'

Sectors

1.  Buildings and Cities 2.  Energy 3.  Food 4.  Land Use 5.  Materials 6.  Transport 7.  Women and Girls

The quote at the top about Landfill Methane came from the section on Buildings and Cities.  Landfill Methane is ranked as solution number 58.

The top ten solutions are listed below

Top Ten Solutions

1.  Refrigerant Management 2.  Wind Turbines (Onshore) 3.  Reduced Food Waste 4.  Plant Rich Diet 5.  Tropical Forests 6.  Educating Girls 7.  Family Planning 8.  Solar Farms 9.  Silvopasture 10. Rooftop Solar

Each solution has calculations on "Total Atmospheric CO2-EQ Reduction" and Net Cost (US$ billions) and Lifetime Savings.

This is an amazing book.  It's visually beautiful and it essentially has the basic plans for saving the planet as we know it.  That's all.

So, why am I posting this a month after the meeting instead of posting about today's meeting?  Well, George Donart, the dynamo leading our Anchorage chapter, took orders for books at the last meeting and he brought them in for us at this meeting.  So I'm newly recharged by the book.

This book would make a great gift for anyone about ten or above.  I'm thinking graduation gifts, gifts for college students, for people you know who don't have climate change on their agenda of important issues.  For people who are concerned about climate change but think there's nothing we can do about it.  For teachers.  For people who are worried about climate change don't know what to do about it.  For yourself.

It's almost like a coffee table book.  You can pick it up and read about one or two solutions.  Then pick it up later and look at the rankings.  Another time read the introduction.

And the CCL website gives you lots more information and you can find the local chapter nearest to you. at this link.

Is my title an exaggeration?  I don't think so.  Climate change related events - and that includes things like the war in Syria - has disrupted the lives of more people, I would venture, than any other single cause in recent years.  If we don't reduce our carbon emissions things will only get worse.  The money we will spend on rebuilding Houston and (as I write this Irma's eye is about to hit Florida.

Screen Shot Google Crisis Map 12:41am Alaska Daylight Time

I personally don't think there is a more significant issue facing humankind.  And as the sectors in Hawken's book show, the solutions cover all aspects of how we live.

Home Building - Are Stellers Moving In? And Home Show

There were four Steller Jays poking around under the dead leaves in the backyard.  Yes, the snow is pretty much gone, except on the north side of the house, and that follows the shadow line as the sun gets higher each day.

The Stellers seem to be having a territorial fight over our backyard with some magpies in the last couple of weeks.  But I haven't seen more than three at a time before this morning.  This one came up on our deck.  The others were too far away and obscured by the branches of our still bare high bush cranberry bushes to get a decent shot.  The last time we had a magpie nest in our yard, we lost access to half the yard to screeching, dive-bombing magpie parents.  But we also got to see a nest full of chicks learn to fly.

Stellers have seemed more comfortable with people, often coming very close.  But that might not be true if they have babies.




 It's gray today, after lots of sunshine.  While the bike trails through the woods are still full of snow, the last two days I've been able to take a loop along the street-side bike trails/sidewalks with only a little water here and there.  But even with a fender on the back tire, my jacket or backpack shows I've been on the bike.





We went to the home show yesterday.  I still object to having to pay to get to have companies pitch to me, but since we have some long delayed home repairs - starting with our front porch.  We're comfortable with it, but guests do make comments.






Last time we went was long ago at the Sullivan Arena.  There's an advantage to having lots of companies related to homes all in one place.  We got to talk to lots of folks.  Even a company that uses a helical drill to put in metal posts instead of sonotubes if we switch to wooden steps, which we're thinking about.  But it seems they're a lot more expensive.

I talked to Adam about rain gutters.  Our old plastic ones I put in myself long ago, still are working fine, except the down spouts keep detaching from the gutters.  The part you use to hold the downspouts in place has broken in each case and the ones they have are for a different size.  Adam sells metal ones.  They also have some heat wires to put on the roof along the overhang that create places for the melting snow to get to the gutter instead of building up big ice dams.  We also got ideas for window upgrades - they even sell electric shutters for windows.

I also got to talk to some solar energy folks.  For under $10,000 (plus a federal rebate of 30% until 2019) I could get solar panels installed on our house.  They aren't useful, he said, in the three darkest months, and the price that MLP buys back energy is too low to be worth it, he claimed it would pay for itself over a period of time.  I didn't catch how long, but I did notice the average electric bill prices they listed were higher than ours.  So, while gun sales have dropped after Trump's election, perhaps solar buyers may be rushing to get their panels installed before the subsidies drop. 

A woman named Lisa, who was here from Minnesota, was selling, what I learned now online, is a "whole body vibration" machine for 'only' $2495.  I did get to stand on it and do some exercises.  It essentially vibrates and is supposed to help muscle tone.  This was a whole technology I knew nothing about.  Whether it actually does what they claim, is not really proven by science according to science based medicine website which seemed to one that wasn't industry based.  I did see them online ranging in price from $3999 to under $200, though the lower ranging ones only had a base and no handles.

What stood out as we walked around the basketball arena at UAA's newish sports center where vendors had their booths - plus a few more in adjacent areas - was the number of mortgage companies and realtors.  While I'm sure they were there when we did this in the Sullivan Arena long ago, they seemed to make up a much larger proportion of the vendors.

A Few Important Links You Might Want To Check Out

Here are a few links that have come my way over the last week.  I thank the people who first posted them - you'll recognize who you are.  These all pushed my brain around a bit and are worth checking out.

1.  New heat storing technology  - Despite the fact that we know of how people have repeatedly been proven wrong throughout history when they said one idea or another is impossible, we still say that today - particularly about alternative energy.

"The technology uses the chemical sodium hydroxide (NaOH), commonly known as lye, to store the heat. When dry sodium hydroxide is exposed to water, it undergoes a chemical reaction that releases a large amount of heat. In sunlight, that water evaporates, drying out the sodium hydroxide and resetting the reaction. The dry sodium hydroxide is very stable, which means it can be stored for months or even years as long as it isn't exposed to water."

2.  Since White House comment lines are reported shut down, someone has set up the website https://whitehouseinc.org.  You leave your phone number and email and someone will call you back and connect you to a Trump property somewhere around the world where you can leave your comment.  The site says,

"Foreign leaders and Wall Street executives know that if they want to reach out to our President, they can just connect with his business associates. Now the American people have a direct line to Trump too."

3.  Commodifying Language - This is a ten page letter from a company called Language Inc. about the financial outlook (good) for companies that privatize public information.  Lots to think about here.


4.  Lit Hub on What to Do during these times  Get inspiration on how to resist.



5.  State Department is Taking ppeople off the Global Entry program - Americans of Iranian-descent are reporting that though they've signed up and paid to be on the Global Entry program and been vetted after a thorough investigation, they are getting notices that they no longer qualify.  How long are we going to let Steve Bannon run the US?


6.  Thirteenth (the movie) is a available at Netflix.
This isn't an easy movie to watch, but if anyone wants to understand why Black Lives Matters matters, then they need to watch how incarceration has been aimed at enslaving blacks in a way that everyone - including the Clintons - could get behind.  It shows how by using the word criminal instead of black, they could get blacks off the streets, and could keep them from voting forever.  Don't argue with me about this until you watch the movie.

Milk Bottle And Hide And Seek

So, look at this picture.

Why this image?


There's a long post at madehow giving the history of the milk carton that begins like this:

"Up until recent times, milk was not usually available as a retail item. Once milk is removed from the cow, it spoils quickly in heat, and is vulnerable to contamination. Until this century, the most economical and hygienic way to store milk was to leave it in the animal. In Europe, a town cow keeper would bring his or her cow directly to the doorstep of the customer, and milk the animal there into a household container. In some places, milk was sold from a shop next door to the cow stall. In either case, the milk could not be safely stored for anything but a small amount of time. A large metal milk container was developed in Europe between 1860 and 1870. Called a churn, the lidded metal container could hold about 21.12 gal (801) of milk."

In reading about the relative benefits of plastic jugs, cardboard cartons, and glass bottles, I found out:

• Plastic cartons are recyclable, but only 29% are recycled, the rest pollute the landfill for hundreds of years.  But it's the lightest weight, so transportation is cheaper.
• Cardboard cartons come from renewable trees.  Not much heavier than plastic.
• Glass comes from sand  a non-renewable  (but plentiful) resource (and it said that sand is one of the major exports of North Korea). Very heavy!
• "extraction of raw materials and manufacturing consume, by far, the most energy in the life of a milk container. So choices that can be reused or recycled are preferable. A 1997 EPA study bears this out, as refillable glass was found to use about half as much energy during its life cycle than either plastic or gable-top cartons. "
• ultraviolet light, which can penetrate clear glass bottles (PDF) and HDPE (PDF), degrades vitamins A and D and riboflavin. That's no small matter, considering between one-third and one-half of American adults are vitamin D deficient."

My guess is that people think milk is better out of glass bottles, or at least their marketing survey said that, and so they put a picture of a glass bottle on the cardboard container.  I think it's bizarre.



Hide And Seek

My granddaughter wanted to play hide and seek yesterday.  She hasn't quite comprehended the concepts, because when she plays, she tells me where I should hide.  And she still has a great time finding me.

Summary Of The 10 Chuitna Decision Appeals, Plus The Actual Docs, And What's Next?

First, A Brief Overview Of What's Transpired And What's Coming Next 

PacRim is "a Delaware Corporation owned by Dick Bass and William Herbert Hunt"developing a 300 million ton coal mine across the inlet from Anchorage on Alaska Mental Health Trust  (AMHT) land..  Chuitna  Citizens Coalition (CCC)  had applied for three water reservations (actually instream flow reservations or IFRs) to protect the water and salmon from the future coal mine.  They were granted one for the Lower Reach of Middle Creek which is outside the proposed mine area.  The other two requested water reservations  - Upper Reach and Middle Reach - are in the proposed mine area and those applications were denied.  [Note: The PacRim website says nothing about who owns the company, so I had to get that information from the CCC website.]

CCC was given one of the three IFR's they applied for.  PacRim and other development and mining groups who opposed all the IFR's had 20 days to appeal the decision.  The deadline was the day before yesterday - Monday, October 26.

A total of ten appeals were submitted to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Commissioner Mark Meyrs Monday,  opposing the decision by DNR's Water Division head to grant one (of three) applications for water reservations on the  Middle Creek (also known as Creek 2003). The commissioner's office emailed me copies yesterday.


I also spoke to David Schade, the head of the Water Division, and the person who made the Oct. 6 decision.  He told me the decision was unique in that the decision will grant a community group a certificate for a reservation of water, something the various resource development organizations strongly protested at the October 6, 2015 hearing.  And it's an argument that is echoed in nearly all their appeal letters.   He also told me that  the DNR Commissioner has at least three options:

1. Uphold the decision;
2. Remand it back to the water division in whole or in part; and
3. Change the decision

There's no specific time limit for the decision and it might take awhile.   Schade also said having so many objectors was unique.

So, while this decision gets appealed, PacRim, presumably will continue the work of getting all the various permits from the different state and federal agencies.  Schade said PacRim had applied for 44 water rights and these were 'substantially complete' but additional information will be required before the Water Section will review them and, at the same time, a Chuitna River Reservation of Water application which was filed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.  Before then, there will be other permit decisions coming in from the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Mining Section of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water, and from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.  After these permitting processes are substantially complete, then the water right applications can be adjudicated.

So, I asked, since the two CCC applications were denied because there was not enough information, will they be able to reapply when the competing PacRim applications are complete?
No, he said.  Those are done.  But DNR is required to protect the public interest including all other competing water rights and impacts on the watershed.   CCC will be able to oppose the PacRim applications just as PacRim and others opposed CCC's applications.

Synopsis Of The Arguments Against The Decision And The Full Letters

I've tried to briefly summarize the key arguments each group or person that appealed the water reservation decision.  Some were easier to do than others.  In any case,  each synopsis is followed by the group's appeal letter, so you can check the details yourself.

1.  Alaska Miners

• Delegation of DNR Regulatory Authority to private group wrong
• “Need” for awarding water reservation not met
• Instream flow reservations as a tool to stop resource development wrong
• Permitting uncertainty

Alaska Miners - Chuitna Water Reservation Appeals by Steve

2. Alaska Mental Health Trust - They own the land and stand to earn substantial revenue from a mine which they can use to support mental health in Alaska.

• The Trust must develop its lands to improve its ability to meet Alaskans’ mental health needs, but its power to do so would be threatened by overly expansive regime of reserved water rights.
• There is no need for a reservation of water rights in Stream 2003
• Granting CCC a reservation of water rights in the Lower Reach of Stream 2003 is contrary to public interest
• If the Commissioner affirms the Division’s decision, he should clarify the scope of the reservation and how it will be administered.
• The Commissioner should deny the reservation requested for the Lower Reach

Alaska Mental Health Trust - Chuitna Water Reservation Appeals

3. PacRim  The mining company that wants to develop the mine.

• “ CCC did not demonstrate that a need existed for a reservation.”
• “DNR used an approach to determine stream flow that lacked transparency, that has no correlation to the level of water necessary to protect fish and fish habitat, and which could require PacRim to maintain stream levels below the mine area that generally do not naturally exist in the Lower Reach of Streem 2003”
• “DNR’s public interest analysis was flawed because it did not evaluate fisheries information for the Lower Reach and failed to address the potential impact of the reservation on upstream users such as the proposed Chuitna Mine”
• “DNR’s decision establishes a troubling precedent that transforms private citizens into regulators of natural resources projects.”

PacRim - Chuitna Water Reservation Appeals by Steve

4. Pacific Seafood Processors Association

• “Water is a public resource and PSPA believes it is in the public’s best interest that reservations be held by public entities that are formally accountable to the public.”
• “the public interest, through the formal public processes, is best served by balancing the trade-offs of public interests such as conservation impacts, economic benefits, and opportunity costs.”

Pacific Seafood Processors Association - Chuitna Water Reservation Appeals by Steve

5. Alaska Oil And Gas Association (AOGA)

• DNR cannot abandon regulatory supremacy
• Applicant fails to meet threshold “Need” Requirement
• Decision represents an invitation for further frustration
• Decision discourages investment in Alaska

AOGA - Chuitna Water Reservation Appeals -

6.  Howard Grey  (Involved in Alaska development, former board member of Alaska Miners)

• “we should consider whether or not the applicant is qualified to administer water resources management duties”
• “we should look at the surrounding ownership to determine if such conveyance will affect the upland owner’s future use and enjoyment of the area or will they be stymied by the proposed segregation?
• “we should consider whether or not the proposed conveyance is in the best interest of the public.”

Howard Grey - Chuitna Water Reservation Appeals

 

7.  Council of Alaska Producers (“trade association for large metal mines and major metal development projects in the state”)

• “It is fundamental that the State should never delegate authority to a private party to manage these resources, because agencies are accountable to the public and elected officials, but private citizens are accountable to no one.”
• “…DNR must find - that a “need” exists for the reservation.  The applicant failed to do this and DNR’s analysis of the “need” relies of unsupported conclusions about hypothetical impacts where no water from Stream 2003 reaches the Chuit River"

Council of Alaska Producers - Chuitna Water Reservation Appeals

 


8.  Resource Development Council

• Creates further uncertainty in Permitting Process
• Undermine existing regulatory process and set dangerous precedent for community and resource development projects
• Jeopardize investment
• Tool for anti-development groups to stop projects
• Delegation of Public Resources to Private Citizens

RDC - Chuitna Water Reservation Appeals

9.   Borrel Consulting Services  ("Heart and soul of the Alaska Mining Industry")

• No need has been demonstrated
• Robust permitting process already exists, and this reservation process undermines that.
• This loose application of the statute and regulations will likely result in future infringements on private and Native-owned private lands.
• Not following proper procedures (not requiring a need) is bad precedent.
• DNR can’t disregard clear requirement to demonstrate a need

Steve Borrel - Regulation, Alaska, Chuitna, PacRim, Coal Mining

10.  Alaska Chamber

• “DNR is abdicating its statutory responsibility, not to the whole of Alaska’s citizens, but to specific individuals, some not even residing in our state.  This is a decision that assaults the very foundation of the State’s regulatory process.  It pulls resource management from the public interest and concentrates that authority in the hands and interests of individuals.
• This striking, precedent-setting reservation is in direct conflict with the department’s published mission to “develop, conserve and maximize the use of Alaska’s natural resources and lawful 
• processes . . .”

Alaska Chamber - Chuitna Water Reservation Appeals by Steve

I'll try to analyze the arguments in a future post.  But I have some calls I'll need to make before I can do that. Meanwhile you can look at past posts on the Chuitna mine project here. [Reposting because of Feedburning problems]

At Least Eight Appeals Received By DNR On Chuitna Water Reservation Decision

I've been planning to do an update on the Chuitna Decision, but I needed to go through it carefully and figure out reasonable questions.  I thought I'd ask David Schade, the head of the Water Division, who signed the decision and then some of the other interested parties. 

But life happens and I only got through to David today.  We haven't had a chance to discuss my questions, but he did tell me that he'd been told there were eight appeals by late this afternoon - people had 20 calendar days to get appeals in, and the decision was on October 6.  He hadn't seen them yet, so he didn't know who submitted them. 

Here are some of the kinds of questions I had:

1.  Was this decision a postponement of the decision or a denial?  It seems to me that at one point the decision says that the Upper and Central fork portions of the Middle River, which are in the proposed mining area, are ripe for decision yet because the the mine's water reservations aren't complete.  That sounds like things are postponed.  But elsewhere it says the reservations have been denied, which sounds final. 

2.    What is the state of PacRim’s water reservation applications?  Different references were made to their applications but it wasn't clear where they were.
- not ready to be submitted because not enough info?
- have they submitted incomplete applications?  What does this mean?
- if submitted, when were they submitted?


3.  The Department finds that it is in the public interest to allow the PacRim permitting review process to be completed, and therefore that it would not be in the public interest to issue a reservation of water on the Main or Middle Reaches of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 at this time.
Is this a logical fallacy?  If one is in the public interest, does that automatically mean the other isn’t?  What this does seem to be saying is that if the reservation is issued, the permitting process would end.  

4.  Can PacRim really close down the Middle Fork above the Lower Reach and divert the water around and back to the Lower Reach and this won't harm the salmon?  Is there a difference between naturally flowing stream water and water that goes through culverts and how does that impact the quality of the water when it gets returned to the natural water way?  And how long would the water be cut off from the Lower Reach while this is being constructed?  Or are those questions people are still waiting on answers for?


There are more questions, but this gives you an idea.  The Oct 6 decision is linked at the earlier post on this.

Gov Wants Special Legislative Session To Do Three Things

Alaska's governor has sent the legislature an 'agenda' for the special legislative session that begins in Juneau on Saturday.  Here are the three key things he wants:

"The three items for consideration in this special session are: 
(1) passage of legislation lifting the tax holiday on real property leased from the State containing threshold volumes of gas in order to ensure that producers are incentivized to commit their gas to Alaska LNG, or to make gas available for purchase if Alaska LNG does not proceed with all current project participants on previously established timelines; 
(2)  an appropriation to pay TransCanada its development costs and terminate its participation in Alaska LNG, so that AGDC can take over TransCanada’s current equity position in the gas treatment plant (GTP) and pipeline;  and
(3) appropriations for the State to make cash calls on the GTP and pipeline components of Alaska LNG to continue pre-front end engineering and design (FEED) work necessary to reach a FEED decision, and for the other State agencies involved in Alaska LNG to fund the work to continue efforts to negotiate and reach final agreements necessary to reach a FEED decision."

He offers a little more detail in the rest of the letter, but no numbers.  That's coming later, the letter says.  If I were a legislator, I'd want as much time as possible to read all the numbers and try to figure out the implications, though in today's political climate, from the governor's perspective, that means more time for opponents to attack.  But really, we want all the questions to be asked and then answered. 

Item #1:  I think ending the tax holiday is easy to understand.  The gas is in the ground, but the oil companies don't have to pay property taxes.  The initial exemption from property taxes was that the oil companies would pump the gas.  But the governor argues, as have others in the past, that without the tax, they have no incentive to do anything.   

Item #2:  I generally like the idea that the state acts as a real partner in this and I guess buying out TransCanada's share is part of doing that.  But, how much does TC want to sell?  If they are happy to to get rid of it, shouldn't we be able to get a discounted price?  Are there any other potential buyers?

I also like that unlike Parnell and Murkowski, Walker seems to represent Alaska and not the oil companies.  That doesn't mean he's making good decisions, but it does mean he's not playing patsy to the oil companies. 

This is going to be big money.  And you need big money in the oil and gas business.  But the state has a history of bad investments in enterprises from the Matsu Dairy to the Seafood Processing Plant in Anchorage.   Is this different?  If so, what can the governor tell us to convince us?  How long will a pipeline take before gas flows?  Will it come on line before ice melts enough for tankers to just fill up directly on the North Slope? 

And, I for one, need assurance that Walker plans to run for reelection, so all this doesn't fall apart.  Should another oil company lackey become governor again, this would all be for naught. 

Item #3:  Some specifics and some numbers would help out here.


Now, the Republican majority in the legislature is full of oil company supporters, even some oil company employees.  Walker has to entice them to vote his way.  The special session on Medicaid expansion earlier this year wasn't exactly a show of bi-partisan support. 

But let's all remember that this is precisely what Walker campaigned on.  A politician who is keeping his promises.  From the EnergyWire last December:

During the campaign, Walker suggested that, if elected, he might renegotiate the gas line contracts to give the state a leadership role. Industry supporters warned that such a step could set the project back by a decade (EnergyWire, Nov. 6).
Continued tensions over the pipeline issue were apparent last month when Walker's team held a town-hall-style transition meeting in Anchorage to draft recommendations for the new administration.
During oil and gas panel discussions, industry representatives called for Walker to endorse the Alaska LNG contracts that Parnell signed with BP Alaska, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Exxon Mobil Corp. and TransCanada Corp.
But Walker supporters protested that the incoming governor shouldn't be asked to sign off on contracts that neither he nor the public has seen in their entirety. Instead, they wanted Walker to push the oil companies to guarantee they'll build the pipeline.
"We'd like to achieve a commitment to build because the agreements we have right now aren't binding," noted Anchorage energy attorney Robin Brena, who served as chairman for the transition conference's oil and gas panel.
Despite their differences, Walker spent the days after the final votes were counted reaching out to Alaska oil industry groups. He held private meetings with the Alaska Oil and Gas Association and the Alaska Support Industry Alliance.

Chuitna Citizens Coalition Gets Rights on Lower Reach of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 But Not Main And Middle Reaches

 The decision is just out.  Here's the DNR press release with links to the decision.  Haven't had time to figure out what it means.  At first glance this looks like a cutting the baby in thirds decision that will leave everyone dissatisfied, but then the parts of the Creek where rights weren't granted, it seems, weren't denied, but deferred because "they were not ready for decision."  

[Note at 11:17am same day after a little more careful reading:  It also says at the end:  "We will not approve significant impacts to the Chuitna River."  The mine plans to excavate thousands of acres 300 feet deep, including parts of the river.  They then say they will restore it after the coal mining.  But shutting down of the river - even if they actually can restore it later - has to qualify as "significant impacts" and so this seems to be a significant win for the Chuitna Citizens Coalition.]


Here's the press release: (with links to the whole decision)

"Decision reached on water reservation applications in Chuitna River watershed

The Division of Mining, Land & Water has issued a decision on the Chuitna Citizens Coalition Inc.'s three applications for instream flow reservations for Middle Creek/Stream 2003, a tributary of the Chuitna River. Two of the applications are for segments of the stream located within the footprint of the proposed Chuitna Coal project.
After review of the facts in the administrative record, public comments and hearing, the decision grants the Chuitna Citizen Coalition's application for the lower reach of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 but does not grant its applications for the creek's main and middle reaches. This decision does not award any permits or water rights to the proposed coal project.
This decision is a reasoned approach that reached conclusion on the lower reach of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 while denying the applications for reservations on the main and middle reaches because they are not ready for decision. The division cannot not yet determine, on this incomplete record, which of the competing applications for the same water would be subject to a preference as the most beneficial use. The division will adjudicate any remaining requests for water rights or instream flow applications in the Chuitna River watershed after the Clean Water Act 404, Surface Mining Coal Regulatory Act (SMCRA) and Title 16 fish habitat permits are done so that we can consider impacts to the watershed by an approved mine plan. We will not approve significant impacts to the Chuitna River. [emphasis added]

Please review the following documents to better understand the decision.

• October 6, 2015 Decision on water reservation applications for the Chuitna River watershed (PDF)
• Map of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 with reservation application reaches identified (PDF)

• October 7, 2015 Press Release (316 KB)"

OK, that's it for now.  The mine company, PacRim, and the various other opponents flat out said the reservation should be rejected, so in that sense it's a loss for them and a win for the Chuitna Citizens Coalition, but I hate to talk in terms of wins and losses.

This is not over and the decision is likely to be challenged in court. 

IFR, Fish v. Coal: The Chuitna Water Decision Due October 6

Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2015 is the court ordered deadline for the Department of Natural Resources to make its decision on the Instream Flow Reservation application by the Chuitna Citizens Coalition.  I did a brief post during the lunch break for the hearing back in August and was hoping to try to give a better sense of what was argued.  But as a presidential candidate recently said, "stuff happens" and I didn't get around to it.

But tomorrow the decision is due and so I feel a need to at least say something here.  For a more organized view of the hearing itself, you can check Zaz Hollander's ADN article. 

Above everything, you need to understand what an IFR application is, because this hearing was about such an application.

This is important if you are to understand anything about this, because those opposing the application from the Chuitna Citizens' Coalition argued they had no business filing for this application in the first place and that DNR has only one option:  to reject it.   So Read Carefully.

So here's from DNR's own website:

What is reservation of water for instream use? A reservation of water for instream use is a water right that protects specific instream water uses,such as fish spawning or recreation. It sets aside the water necessary for these activities and keeps later water users from appropriating water that may affect the instream activity. Water can be reserved for one or more permissible uses on a particular part of a stream or lake during a certain period of time. Under AS 46.15.145, permissible instream uses include: Protection of fish and wildlife habitat, migration, and propagation Recreation and parks Navigation and transportation Sanitation and water quality A reservation of water for one use may also allow that same water to be used or reserved for another purpose. For example, a reservation for recreation may also benefit fish spawning. Like an out-of-stream water right, an instream reservation of water is similar to a property right. It cannot be abandoned,transferred, assigned, or converted to another use without approval of the Department of Natural Resources. Who can apply for a reservation of water? Private individuals,organizations, and government agencies may apply for a reservation of water for instream use.

Underlying Conflict

Essentially, the hearing exemplified the two narratives that were spelled out by sociobiologist E. O. Wilson's two narratives as he spells them out in his book The Future of Life.

"It's a battle between two narratives:

Narrative 1:

The free market is the most economical system for bringing prosperity to the world and government regulation just screws things up.

Narrative 2:
The free market has many positive benefits, but it also commodifies our collective resources resulting in the catastrophic destruction of the Earth's species and if we don't stop this trend immediately, we will destroy those things that makes life possible on earth."

 Essentially, the testimony given by the Chuitna Citizens' Coalition followed Narrative 2.  The testimony by PacRim and their supporters was based on Narrative 1.

It's sort of like the flat earth battling the round earth people.  Their predictions will be wildly different because they are beginning from wildly different assumptions about the nature of the world.  


This is going to be pretty quick and dirty because I squandered the month I had to write this.  (Presumably DNR's decision maker on this, Dave Schade. made better use of his time than I have.)

Background
PacRim proposes to build a mine.  Part of the plans call for them to excavate down 300 feet for thousands of acres, essentially wiping out the river.  Then they plan to restore that river to better than it was.  The Chuitna group doesn't believe that can happen.  They're applying for an instream flow reservation mainly because they are concerned about the salmon whose path to the tributary will be interrupted for the years that the mine exists. 

Also, there are different water bodies referred to.  There's the Chuitna and then the tributaries. 

Some issues that were raised at the testimony:

Procedural Issues

1.  PacRim argued that the Chuitna Citizens' Coalition shouldn't even be able to apply for an IFR.  They said this amounted to private citizens taking over public policy decisions the state should make.  CCC argued they would get no regulatory power, only the right to protect the river by getting the state to enforce their IFR.

2.  PacRim argued it's too early for them to apply for their own permit and CCC's permit shouldn't be reviewed until they are ready to have a competing permit.

3.  PacRim argued that if CCC got the IFR, it would kill the mine.  CCC argued PacRim's process could then keep going, but PacRim reps said their financial backers would all pull out because it would show the state opposed the mine.

4.  PacRim took the unusual position for a coal mining company (and it was echoed by the other resource extraction groups that testified) that the state and feds had excellent, rigorous regulatory processes that should be followed through that will protect the public and thus this IFR application was not only unnecessary, but counter to the process.   I don't recall so much praise for regulation by such organizations ever before. 

Measurement Issues

1.  Technical data about river, fish, flow, etc.  PacRim said that CCC's application was invalid because they had no data.  And what they had was methodologically flawed.  From my rough notes on the PacRim's first go at it:

"Lack of specific data.  Not even stream based data in places.  If the citizens coalition is asking to fulfill the role of government,  they should be at least as prepared as the government as another applicant.  That is the way it should be.  Huge problem.  Did not have site specific info.  Info about flow levels, specific features - ripples, spawning habitats.  At least one field season of work.  Methodology of their study is flawed.  Not appropriate here.  Quick and dirty method.  Hasn’t been validated for small streams like this."

The CCC argued there data and methodology were good, but PacRim's were bad.

2.  Economic Impact Data - PacRim's data focused on financial value of the coal.  CCC disputed their projections, saying there was nothing there to back them up.  Furthermore, given the change in the price of oil and the decline of coal everywhere, the PacRim project would now lose money.  CCC (different groups like Inlet Keepers also testified for CCC and I'm not distinguishing here who said what) also argued for considering a much wider range of economic impacts to be measured - the cost of the salmon fishery's damage, and even the cost of environmental infrastructure which helps clean the water and air and keeps the salmon and other species healthy.  They also talked about the recreational value of the land.  This is where the E.O. Wilson narratives seemed most obvious.

 Other Issues

There were a number of other interesting twists and I won't try to cover them all.  But a key one was the presence of the Alaska Mental Health Trust which stands to gain income from the mining on their land.  This income would be used to help provide mental health services in the state.

But I think the key issue is the conflicting narratives about the use of collective resources and private entities - whether they are coal companies or private citizens.

The impact of coal on climate change was also raised and how Alaska is the most impacted state already with melting glaciers and permafrost, eroding shorelines, ocean acidification, and loss of polar bear and walrus habitat. 



Criteria for the Decision

The criteria for making the decision are also listed on the DNR website: (I've reformatted them a bit to make it easier to read)

"When your application is complete, it will be reviewed to determine

• the need for the reservation of water and 
• its impact on other water right holders and 
• the public interest. 

An assessment will be made to determine if water is available for the reservation and if the information in the application is accurate and adequate. Public notice of the application must be given."

[UPDATE 10:41pm - here are the more detailed criteria I published in the August 20 post on this:

AS 46.15.080. Criteria For Issuance of Permit.

(a) The commissioner shall issue a permit if the commissioner finds that

(1) rights of a prior appropriator will not be unduly affected;

(2) the proposed means of diversion or construction are adequate;

(3) the proposed use of water is beneficial; and

(4) the proposed appropriation is in the public interest.

(b) In determining the public interest, the commissioner shall consider

(1) the benefit to the applicant resulting from the proposed appropriation;

(2) the effect of the economic activity resulting from the proposed appropriation;

(3) the effect on fish and game resources and on public recreational opportunities;

(4) the effect on public health;

(5) the effect of loss of alternate uses of water that might be made within a reasonable time if not precluded or hindered by the proposed appropriation;

(6) harm to other persons resulting from the proposed appropriation;

(7) the intent and ability of the applicant to complete the appropriation; and

(8) the effect upon access to navigable or public water.]

But whatever decision is announced tomorrow, you can rest assured it will be challenged by the party whose argument did not prevail.  This is just the beginning.