Opponents of the Pebble mine project are pursuing ballot initiatives that would preclude the opening of any new mines in Alaska.

The water quality standards proposed by the initiative are so stringent that any discharge into any watercourse would be prohibited. This would understandably eliminate any new mining projects in Alaska.

But if the initiative is applied equitably, its impact on industrial operations and indeed any type of development in Alaska would be devastating.

If the initiatives pass, they will take effect and remain the law of the land until challenges weave their way through the protracted legal process. That will take years at best and will result in fragmented decisions that will only increase industry uncertainty for those seeking to pursue business opportunities and development projects in Alaska.

While mining, and the Pebble project in particular, is the target of the initiative process, the impact of a successful initiative would be felt across all industry operations and throughout the state.

Application of the initiatives to other industries using water in Alaska will have a similar strangulatory affect. It is easy to see the significant impact such an initiative would have on the oil and gas industry, which discharges water in the course of drilling or production operations.

While Alaskans recognize the importance of oil production to the state's economy, all it would take is one extreme environmental group seeking to enforce a clean water initiative against an oil or gas producer or driller to have dramatic and detrimental effect on this critical component of Alaska's economy.

Coal production, gravel operations and wastewater treatment plants could also be subject to an equitably enforced clean water initiative. If a clean water initiative survives constitutional challenge, it would presumably be applied to any water user in Alaska.

It is easy to see the far-reaching impact this initiative would have on statewide, regional or local economies in Alaska. Permits for any impact on a waterway would be impossible to obtain. Fish production would have a preferential right to water use over any other users, making any activity that discharged anything into a waterway impossible to permit.

Fisheries and tourism activities related to fishing cannot sustain Alaska economically. The passage of a clean water initiative will create a serious deceleration of the Alaska economy and eliminate activity in some segments altogether. A clean water initiative has enormous voter appeal, because the general populous universally supports clean water. It will be very difficult for industry or user groups to campaign against a proposal to keep Alaska's waters clean and protect its wild fish populations.

A worker takes samples of the water in a river near the mine site. Opponents of the mine have gathered signatures on a ballot initiative that could effectively shut down Pebble, as well as many other industries. File Photo/Margaret Bauman/AJOC

Supporters will trumpet the narrow scope of the initiative and that it only targets large mining projects that are not yet in operation. But there is no reason to believe a law can be applied so selectively. Any water user should be subject to the same onerous limitations.

A unified opposition, similar to that marshaled against the oil tax initiative will be necessary to defeat the clean water initiatives. Support from the other major water user groups such as cities and villages and the oil and gas industry will give voters the picture that if an initiative passes, it truly will put the brakes on economic activity across the state.

While environmental groups will passionately support any initiative in the interest of making Alaska an isolated and exclusive recreation area for the well to do, the general population recognizes the importance of industry to Alaska's economic viability.

Business, industry and individual Alaskans must be fully informed of the deep and far reaching impact that a clean water initiative will have.

State chamber members must rally against the clean water initiatives as a group and individually. Civic groups such as chambers, rotary and industry alliances must come out in opposition to these initiatives.

But opposition, if it is to succeed, must be much more global and include Alaska Native regional and village corporations, government at all levels, and all manner of industry and water user groups.

While one never wants to cry wolf unnecessarily, it is hard to imagine a user group that will not be impacted by an equitably applied clean water initiative, and the impact it will have on any natural resource development in Alaska.

Mary Ann Pease, with MAP Consulting, is an Alaska State Chamber board member.