These are electric times. The Homer Electric Association Board of Directors has always served an important function on the central and southern Kenai Peninsula, but one that hasn’t always garnered much attention from HEA members. Come annual election time, picking names and returning ballots for some voters is fueled more by a desire to qualify for energy credits than it is a concern over the politics and policies of the co-op.
It’s not that who gets elected doesn’t matter, it’s just that voters haven’t had much incentive to take time out of their busy lives to familiarize themselves with the issues facing the HEA board and the views of those seeking seats on it.
Until now. This past year’s dramatic increase in electricity rates has had one positive side effect: It gets people’s attention.
And just in time. The board will soon face decisions of monumental and fundamental importance to how HEA operates in the future. Such basic questions as:
Where will HEA get power? Should it continue contracting for the majority of its electricity from natural gas? Is that even an option with reserves dwindling and prices climbing?
Should HEA invest in developing renewable energy sources? If so, which ones, where and to what scale?
What about coal? Do affordability and abundance factors outweigh environmental concerns? How long and to what level should HEA commit to the Healy coal plant?
What if Pebble Mine gets the go-ahead? Will HEA be involved in providing the massive amount of power the operation will require? If so, how?
Should HEA support joining forces with other Railbelt electric utilities for generation and transportation purposes? Should a single, “postage-stamp” rate be established for the entire Railbelt?
The answers to all these questions will have an impact on pocketbooks. So now’s the time to think about answers. Read up on the issues and candidates’ stances on them. Talk to current and hopeful board members. Visit with neighbors and friends about their priorities. And most importantly, don’t think casting a vote is the end of it. Several candidates stated they want to carry out the will of their constituents. So stay informed, involved and vocal. If board members don’t know what residents want, they can’t advocate it.
Pay attention now, or pay for it later.
Showing posts with label editorial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label editorial. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Editorial: Stumbling start to the right path
For someone as image-savvy as Gov. Sarah Palin, it was surprising to see her stuff her foot in her mouth as unnecessarily as she did over federal stimulus spending.
Her announcement March 18 that she would not request a third of the federal stimulus money Alaska was eligible for, about $288 million of $931 million, caused an immediate and vehement response from prospective recipients, most notably, schools and social services agencies.
The announcement created controversy where there ordinarily is none by the governor saying “no thanks” to money that would feed the poor and help educate special-needs and financially disadvantaged kids.
She might as well have kicked a puppy while she was at it.
Out of the fervor that erupted, a new plan emerged —the Legislature would consider spending plans and decide what funding to accept and what to deny. Such oversight is critical to making sure this financial windfall does not turn into an obligation in two years when the money runs out.
In her initial announcement, Gov. Palin’s rationale for turning down the money was that it had strings attached. It would require new regulations and could balloon government and the organizations receiving money by creating new jobs and programs that don’t have a source of funding other than this one-time infusion of federal cash.
Speculation about Gov. Palin’s possible national political motives aside, those are valid points and important pitfalls to guard against. It is entirely appropriate and crucial, in fact, that there be scrutiny on this funding and accountability on how it’s spent, to ensure it is used as intended to boost the economy and help those most in need, not as a one-time, free-for-all of frivolous spending.
Had Gov. Palin communicated her concerns with expectant recipients beforehand, she would have been told at the outset what she’s heard in public outcry since — the money will be put to good use. In education, especially, the extra funding would be in channeled through existing federal programs, which brings with it more rules and regulations regarding its use than the state or Legislature would have need or desire to create for itself. Other agencies are also more than willing to conform to the governor’s wish that the money not create costs down the road.
The state is on the right path in scrutinizing the stimulus money and safeguarding that the boon doesn’t become a burden.
But Palin would have done herself and her administration a huge favor by treading lightly down this path, instead of kicking up the dust storm that’s obscured this issue.
Her announcement March 18 that she would not request a third of the federal stimulus money Alaska was eligible for, about $288 million of $931 million, caused an immediate and vehement response from prospective recipients, most notably, schools and social services agencies.
The announcement created controversy where there ordinarily is none by the governor saying “no thanks” to money that would feed the poor and help educate special-needs and financially disadvantaged kids.
She might as well have kicked a puppy while she was at it.
Out of the fervor that erupted, a new plan emerged —the Legislature would consider spending plans and decide what funding to accept and what to deny. Such oversight is critical to making sure this financial windfall does not turn into an obligation in two years when the money runs out.
In her initial announcement, Gov. Palin’s rationale for turning down the money was that it had strings attached. It would require new regulations and could balloon government and the organizations receiving money by creating new jobs and programs that don’t have a source of funding other than this one-time infusion of federal cash.
Speculation about Gov. Palin’s possible national political motives aside, those are valid points and important pitfalls to guard against. It is entirely appropriate and crucial, in fact, that there be scrutiny on this funding and accountability on how it’s spent, to ensure it is used as intended to boost the economy and help those most in need, not as a one-time, free-for-all of frivolous spending.
Had Gov. Palin communicated her concerns with expectant recipients beforehand, she would have been told at the outset what she’s heard in public outcry since — the money will be put to good use. In education, especially, the extra funding would be in channeled through existing federal programs, which brings with it more rules and regulations regarding its use than the state or Legislature would have need or desire to create for itself. Other agencies are also more than willing to conform to the governor’s wish that the money not create costs down the road.
The state is on the right path in scrutinizing the stimulus money and safeguarding that the boon doesn’t become a burden.
But Palin would have done herself and her administration a huge favor by treading lightly down this path, instead of kicking up the dust storm that’s obscured this issue.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Editorial: Peninsula scores passing marks for Redoubt round 1
OK, be honest now:
Who went to bed Sunday or woke up Monday thinking: “Gee, I really should have stocked up on water/air filters/flashlights/etc.” by now?
Consider this your warning.
Attention to Mount Redoubt wound down after months of activity without an eruption. Then, within a day, Redoubt decided to no longer be ignored.
The great news for the Kenai Peninsula is the ash plumes spurted out in the series of eruptions have missed us so far, and weather forecasts predict continued favorable wind patterns through Friday.
The good news is it appears as though, even if we had gotten some ash, the peninsula would have been more or less ready for it.
There were lines at some stores with people stocking up on last-minute emergency supplies, but Scott Walden, coordinator of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Office of Emergency Management, said all remained calm.
Even with what may be one of the most poorly timed coincidental power outages in the history of Homer Electric Association, Walden said he didn’t see or hear of any panic. Concern, yes, and a lot of phone calls to OEM and HEA, but people listened to explanations that the outage was not linked to the volcano, and went on about their day.
Walden credits preparedness with the peninsula’s response to Redoubt. OEM and other organizations have been spreading information on what to do if Redoubt erupts for months now.
Chances are, you’ve heard the message. But if you still have question needing to be answered or supplies needing to be prepared, now’s the time. Visit the OEM Web site for ash information, supply lists and other preparedness information, at www.borough.kenai.ak.us/emergency.
Who went to bed Sunday or woke up Monday thinking: “Gee, I really should have stocked up on water/air filters/flashlights/etc.” by now?
Consider this your warning.
Attention to Mount Redoubt wound down after months of activity without an eruption. Then, within a day, Redoubt decided to no longer be ignored.
The great news for the Kenai Peninsula is the ash plumes spurted out in the series of eruptions have missed us so far, and weather forecasts predict continued favorable wind patterns through Friday.
The good news is it appears as though, even if we had gotten some ash, the peninsula would have been more or less ready for it.
There were lines at some stores with people stocking up on last-minute emergency supplies, but Scott Walden, coordinator of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Office of Emergency Management, said all remained calm.
Even with what may be one of the most poorly timed coincidental power outages in the history of Homer Electric Association, Walden said he didn’t see or hear of any panic. Concern, yes, and a lot of phone calls to OEM and HEA, but people listened to explanations that the outage was not linked to the volcano, and went on about their day.
Walden credits preparedness with the peninsula’s response to Redoubt. OEM and other organizations have been spreading information on what to do if Redoubt erupts for months now.
Chances are, you’ve heard the message. But if you still have question needing to be answered or supplies needing to be prepared, now’s the time. Visit the OEM Web site for ash information, supply lists and other preparedness information, at www.borough.kenai.ak.us/emergency.
Guest editorial: Pitching in to keep salmon moving
A single road crossing with a bad culvert can prevent fish from reaching miles of habitat.Small tributaries provide a path to salmon nurseries, and juvenile salmon, particularly coho, migrate up streams.
Studies have shown that juvenile salmon that successfully migrate up and down small streams survive better in the ocean. It is important to keep these migration routes free of barriers.
Damaged, poorly designed or poorly maintained culverts all create a significant impasse to fish migration. Addressing the needs of fish passage is one of the primary focuses of the Kenai Watershed Forum’s efforts on the Kenai Peninsula.
A large culvert restoration project has recently been completed by the Kenai Watershed Forum. A culvert at Daniel’s Creek in Nikiski had been so badly crushed that parts of it were sticking up through the road surface. And the culvert was too narrow compared to the normal width of t
he stream. To avoid the jagged culvert in the road, drivers were illegally trudging through the salmon stream, destroying habitat for spawning and rearing.The crushed culvert was located along a shared right-of-way and pipeline crossing. A single-lane, 16-foot span bridge was installed during the replacement of the crushed culvert, allowing unabated movement of anadromous fish. The bridge allows for the most natural conditions possible while still allowing recreation and heavy equipment access along the right-of-way.
Tesoro Alaska stepped in as a financial partner in the restoration project, and the Tesoro Alaska refinery provided 15 volunteers for a day’s effort toward the bank revegetation and stabilization. The banks were repaired with willows and coir logs. This restoration project opened over one mile of stream habitat in addition to a large lake.
The Daniel’s Creek project was completed during the spring and summer of 2008, with a total project cost of approximately $75,000. In addition to Tesoro Alaska, the Kenai Watershed Forum partnered with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to complete this project supporting fish habitat in our Kenai Peninsula watershed.
Looking ahead, the 2009 spring and summer construction season will be a busy one for the Kenai Watershed Forum’s culvert restoration staff. At this time, nine culvert replacement projects are planned within the Kenai Peninsula.
To find out more about culvert restoration projects, how culverts are assessed or a map of the highest-priority culvert projects on the peninsula, check out the restoration link on the Kenai Watershed Forum’s Web site at kenaiwatershed.org.
Rhonda Orth is the accounting and office manager for the Kenai Watershed Forum.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Editorial: Belt tightening good, but don’t squeeze too tight
Kenai Peninsula Borough Mayor Dave Carey is right in taking a cautious approach to the borough budget this year. Financial storm clouds are on the horizon — with a drop in oil prices affecting state revenue sharing, a decrease in sales taxes from the exemption of nonprepared food and a question mark over how much the borough will feel the deepening national financial crisis. Whether the storm amounts to a drizzle or a hurricane, it’s good fiscal policy to put sandbags in place now, before the rains come.
Carey has asked all departments to submit budgets with no more than a 4 percent increase. He’s looking at service areas and grants for ways to save money and avoid costly obligations down the road. He’s also instituted a zero-based budgeting approach to the nonprofit organizations the borough has funded in the past, meaning the organizations will have to justify why and how much the borough should fund them.
These are all sound financial practices, and Carey’s desire to lower the mill rate to keep more money in taxpayers’ pockets is an idea that’s sure to be popular.
That desire can be carried too far. Government’s role is to provide essential services on behalf of the people funding it. But when “essential” is defined too narrowly, it does a disservice to residents, even if it means they have some extra cash after tax season.
In the case of the nonprofits, they do a service to the borough far beyond the value of the funding they receive. They leverage local funding into much more on a state and national level, and do important work with it without the borough having to hire people or create programs.
There is a line that delineates what’s proper for the borough to fund and how much that funding should be, and this is a good time to examine it. If the mayor and assembly decide to cut, they should do so with their eyes open the full impact those cuts will have on these organizations, the services they provide and the revenue they bring into the borough.
Belt tightening is in order, but let’s not strangle ourselves in the process.
Carey has asked all departments to submit budgets with no more than a 4 percent increase. He’s looking at service areas and grants for ways to save money and avoid costly obligations down the road. He’s also instituted a zero-based budgeting approach to the nonprofit organizations the borough has funded in the past, meaning the organizations will have to justify why and how much the borough should fund them.
These are all sound financial practices, and Carey’s desire to lower the mill rate to keep more money in taxpayers’ pockets is an idea that’s sure to be popular.
That desire can be carried too far. Government’s role is to provide essential services on behalf of the people funding it. But when “essential” is defined too narrowly, it does a disservice to residents, even if it means they have some extra cash after tax season.
In the case of the nonprofits, they do a service to the borough far beyond the value of the funding they receive. They leverage local funding into much more on a state and national level, and do important work with it without the borough having to hire people or create programs.
There is a line that delineates what’s proper for the borough to fund and how much that funding should be, and this is a good time to examine it. If the mayor and assembly decide to cut, they should do so with their eyes open the full impact those cuts will have on these organizations, the services they provide and the revenue they bring into the borough.
Belt tightening is in order, but let’s not strangle ourselves in the process.
Guest editorial: Transparency, good faith, public participation needed to solve energy dilemma
Recent grass-roots action by Homer Electric Association cooperative members which resulted in the HEA Board’s decision to contract a third-party, fact-based Power Supply Study is a shining example of why public participation is essential in influencing responsible regional energy policy, including study and development of renewable energy projects.
Unfortunately, HEA, doing business as Kenai Hydro LLC, is aggressively pursuing hydroelectric projects proposed for Kenai River headwaters near Moose Pass and Cooper Landing, which do not represent good renewable energy policy or good public policy.
HEA widely and deliberately misrepresented the projects as “low-impact” to obtain public money and to defuse legitimate public criticism.
HEA funding requests mischaracterizing the projects as low-impact resulted in over $1 million in public funding from the Denali Commission, Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority/Alaska Energy Authority, and the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee.
Project information distributed to the public, HEA cooperative members, and state and federal agencies prominently displayed the Low Impact Hydropower Institute logo. At meetings in Cooper Landing and Moose Pass, HEA stated its commitment to develop the projects, as much as possible, in compliance with LIHI criteria.
The truth is LIHI does not support construction of any new hydropower facilities. LIHI criteria only apply to existing hydro facilities built before 1998, only evaluate the compliance of those existing facilities with conditions of their Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses, and are not applicable to conceptual projects. HEA’s association of LIHI’s logo and low-impact criteria with these projects was not only irrelevant, but a disingenuous attempt to hoodwink agencies and the public into believing these projects would substantially meet independently established, low-impact environmental criteria.
Preliminary permits issued by FERC describe construction of dams of up to 10 feet high and 200 feet wide. HEA has publicly rationalized the need for over eight miles of new road construction, destruction of existing hiking trails and dewatering of Kenai River tributary streams providing important fish spawning and rearing habitat.
HEA continues promoting these projects despite having been informed that the projects, as proposed, do not conform to important public policy and resource management provisions of the:
The timing and amounts of funding, limited state oversight and overly elaborate designs based on insufficient data that do not comply with existing resource management plans and policy, especially for the Crescent and Ptarmigan lakes projects, has raised concern that HEA engaged in a classic “bait and switch” scheme. Local residents fear that public money ostensibly allocated to the Crescent and Ptarmigan lakes projects was spent improperly to promote the Grant Lake/Falls Creek project, and that overall, HEA wasted public money to pursue, at best, marginally feasible projects where the potential impacts far outweigh the possible benefits.
Despite its use of public funding and the fact that these projects rely totally on development and use of public lands and waters, HEA is attempting to limit process transparency and public participation in the FERC licensing, National Environmental Policy Act, mandatory conditioning and permitting processes for these projects.
HEA has stated it plans to seek FERC permission to use the Traditional Licensing Process to authorize the projects. According to officials in FERC’s Washington, D.C., offices, the TLP provides the least process transparency and opportunities for public participation. The TLP is driven and controlled by the project proponent, requires few public meetings, and involves the public late in the process after many decisions have already been made.
The Integrated Licensing Process provides greater process transparency and opportunities for public participation. FERC implemented the ILP in 2005 as its default process, in part, to correct well-documented public participation and process transparency deficiencies associated with the TLP. The ILP involves the public and discloses existing project information early in the process. In addition to soliciting written public response and comments, the ILP provides for a comprehensive series of public meetings. Under the ILP, environmental study plans are developed in coordination with the NEPA process to help ensure public and agency concerns identified during NEPA scoping are addressed through collection and analysis of pertinent data.
To address the high costs and uncertain future of electrical power generated from declining reserves of Cook Inlet natural gas, industry, government and the public need to work together in a good-faith effort to carefully study and prudently develop renewable energy projects. Full public participation in a transparent process is necessary to ensure that public funding and development of public lands, waters and resources results in an appropriate balance between public and private interests, and that renewable energy projects are in line with reasonable social and environmental impacts that are fully disclosed.
Mike Cooney is a forestry consultant and hunting guide who has worked in natural resource management for more than 30 years. He is a resident of Moose Pass.
Unfortunately, HEA, doing business as Kenai Hydro LLC, is aggressively pursuing hydroelectric projects proposed for Kenai River headwaters near Moose Pass and Cooper Landing, which do not represent good renewable energy policy or good public policy.
HEA widely and deliberately misrepresented the projects as “low-impact” to obtain public money and to defuse legitimate public criticism.
HEA funding requests mischaracterizing the projects as low-impact resulted in over $1 million in public funding from the Denali Commission, Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority/Alaska Energy Authority, and the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee.
Project information distributed to the public, HEA cooperative members, and state and federal agencies prominently displayed the Low Impact Hydropower Institute logo. At meetings in Cooper Landing and Moose Pass, HEA stated its commitment to develop the projects, as much as possible, in compliance with LIHI criteria.
The truth is LIHI does not support construction of any new hydropower facilities. LIHI criteria only apply to existing hydro facilities built before 1998, only evaluate the compliance of those existing facilities with conditions of their Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses, and are not applicable to conceptual projects. HEA’s association of LIHI’s logo and low-impact criteria with these projects was not only irrelevant, but a disingenuous attempt to hoodwink agencies and the public into believing these projects would substantially meet independently established, low-impact environmental criteria.
Preliminary permits issued by FERC describe construction of dams of up to 10 feet high and 200 feet wide. HEA has publicly rationalized the need for over eight miles of new road construction, destruction of existing hiking trails and dewatering of Kenai River tributary streams providing important fish spawning and rearing habitat.
HEA continues promoting these projects despite having been informed that the projects, as proposed, do not conform to important public policy and resource management provisions of the:
- Chugach Forest Plan;
- Inventoried Roadless Area Rule;
- Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan;
- Kenai Area Plan;
- Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan; and
- Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s management intent for the Kenai River watershed.
The timing and amounts of funding, limited state oversight and overly elaborate designs based on insufficient data that do not comply with existing resource management plans and policy, especially for the Crescent and Ptarmigan lakes projects, has raised concern that HEA engaged in a classic “bait and switch” scheme. Local residents fear that public money ostensibly allocated to the Crescent and Ptarmigan lakes projects was spent improperly to promote the Grant Lake/Falls Creek project, and that overall, HEA wasted public money to pursue, at best, marginally feasible projects where the potential impacts far outweigh the possible benefits.
Despite its use of public funding and the fact that these projects rely totally on development and use of public lands and waters, HEA is attempting to limit process transparency and public participation in the FERC licensing, National Environmental Policy Act, mandatory conditioning and permitting processes for these projects.
HEA has stated it plans to seek FERC permission to use the Traditional Licensing Process to authorize the projects. According to officials in FERC’s Washington, D.C., offices, the TLP provides the least process transparency and opportunities for public participation. The TLP is driven and controlled by the project proponent, requires few public meetings, and involves the public late in the process after many decisions have already been made.
The Integrated Licensing Process provides greater process transparency and opportunities for public participation. FERC implemented the ILP in 2005 as its default process, in part, to correct well-documented public participation and process transparency deficiencies associated with the TLP. The ILP involves the public and discloses existing project information early in the process. In addition to soliciting written public response and comments, the ILP provides for a comprehensive series of public meetings. Under the ILP, environmental study plans are developed in coordination with the NEPA process to help ensure public and agency concerns identified during NEPA scoping are addressed through collection and analysis of pertinent data.
To address the high costs and uncertain future of electrical power generated from declining reserves of Cook Inlet natural gas, industry, government and the public need to work together in a good-faith effort to carefully study and prudently develop renewable energy projects. Full public participation in a transparent process is necessary to ensure that public funding and development of public lands, waters and resources results in an appropriate balance between public and private interests, and that renewable energy projects are in line with reasonable social and environmental impacts that are fully disclosed.
Mike Cooney is a forestry consultant and hunting guide who has worked in natural resource management for more than 30 years. He is a resident of Moose Pass.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Editorial: Death penalty is not the necessary conversation
Rep. Mike Chenault, R-Nikiski, has stated his intention to start a discussion about protecting Alaskans from violent crimes. While that’s a noble aim and would be a valuable conversation, by submitting House Bill 9, which would reinstate the death penalty in Alaska, he takes the discussion in the wrong direction.
The Alaska Territorial Legislature abolished the death penalty in 1957, with good reason. Moral concerns aside, the practicality and common-sense arguments against state executions are too weighty to overcome.
As Chenault himself points out in a post on his blog, www.mikechenault.com, death row is expensive. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice found in 2008 that confining an inmate to death row, compared to a sentence of life without parole, is $90,000 more per inmate. On the federal level, a 2008 report by the Office of Defender Services found that a federal murder case in which the death penalty is sought costs about $620,932 — eight times more than a murder case not seeking execution.
As Speaker of the House, Chenault displays a disappointingly laissez-faire attitude about state expenses, especially in trying financial times: “Frankly, I don’t believe that cost should get in the way of dispensing true justice. How do you measure the cost of peace of mind? Most of us would sleep better at night knowing a criminal will never have the opportunity to harm another human being.”
While doing what’s right isn’t always synonymous with doing what’s cheapest, in this situation, there is a more cost-effective, as well as overall effective, solution:
Life without parole. Not only is it less expensive than reinstating the death penalty, it also avoids the risk of executing the wrong person. Chenault says the death penalty should only be used in “cases where there is no question of guilt or innocence,” and that he’s included safeguards in his bill to “help ensure that people are not wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death.”
When we’re talking about life and death, “help ensure” is simply not good enough. In a justice system predicated upon “reasonable doubt” — not absolute, 100 percent certainty — there’s always at least a fraction of a chance of a mistake, especially when human error is an ever-present possibility. The only way to absolutely ensure the wrong people aren’t put to death is to not kill them.
When considering the larger goals of sentencing — protecting the public from repeat offenders and deterring future crime — the death penalty is not the best way to achieve those aims.
Life without parole is just as effective at preventing criminals from harming anyone else, especially if Chenault had proposed a bill seeking to strengthen life sentences. As for preventing heinous crimes, the threat of the death penalty is not a deterrent. Expecting it to be means expecting violent criminals to employ rational thought. If they did that, they wouldn’t have committed such crimes in the first place.
Murderers, terrorists, serial killers — by definition, they are not reasonable individuals. If they are deranged enough to perpetrate violence on such a monstrous scale, chances are they won’t pause beforehand to consider which state they’re in and what the maximum penalty might be if they are caught, lose their jury trail and exhaust all their appeals.
Common sense is borne out by research — information from the Death Penalty Information Center shows that states without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates than states with the death penalty.
Chenault says so himself — “People who commit the most monstrous of crimes will not have the opportunity to reoffend if a death sentence is imposed … while I don’t believe it’s a deterrent to crime, I believe it should be an option for the justice system to brandish against the most heinous unremorseful criminals in our society.”
Protection of human rights and safety should be the highest priority of our justice and related social systems. If even Chenault doesn’t believe the death penalty will deter violent crime, what’s the point of introducing the measure?
Time and discussion would be much better spent on other aims — strengthening sentencing for the most heinous crimes, helping murder victims’ families and investing in education, rehabilitation, employment and social service programs proven to help prevent crime and keep criminals from reoffending.
Let’s breathe life into those areas and keep the death penalty buried.
The Alaska Territorial Legislature abolished the death penalty in 1957, with good reason. Moral concerns aside, the practicality and common-sense arguments against state executions are too weighty to overcome.
As Chenault himself points out in a post on his blog, www.mikechenault.com, death row is expensive. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice found in 2008 that confining an inmate to death row, compared to a sentence of life without parole, is $90,000 more per inmate. On the federal level, a 2008 report by the Office of Defender Services found that a federal murder case in which the death penalty is sought costs about $620,932 — eight times more than a murder case not seeking execution.
As Speaker of the House, Chenault displays a disappointingly laissez-faire attitude about state expenses, especially in trying financial times: “Frankly, I don’t believe that cost should get in the way of dispensing true justice. How do you measure the cost of peace of mind? Most of us would sleep better at night knowing a criminal will never have the opportunity to harm another human being.”
While doing what’s right isn’t always synonymous with doing what’s cheapest, in this situation, there is a more cost-effective, as well as overall effective, solution:
Life without parole. Not only is it less expensive than reinstating the death penalty, it also avoids the risk of executing the wrong person. Chenault says the death penalty should only be used in “cases where there is no question of guilt or innocence,” and that he’s included safeguards in his bill to “help ensure that people are not wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death.”
When we’re talking about life and death, “help ensure” is simply not good enough. In a justice system predicated upon “reasonable doubt” — not absolute, 100 percent certainty — there’s always at least a fraction of a chance of a mistake, especially when human error is an ever-present possibility. The only way to absolutely ensure the wrong people aren’t put to death is to not kill them.
When considering the larger goals of sentencing — protecting the public from repeat offenders and deterring future crime — the death penalty is not the best way to achieve those aims.
Life without parole is just as effective at preventing criminals from harming anyone else, especially if Chenault had proposed a bill seeking to strengthen life sentences. As for preventing heinous crimes, the threat of the death penalty is not a deterrent. Expecting it to be means expecting violent criminals to employ rational thought. If they did that, they wouldn’t have committed such crimes in the first place.
Murderers, terrorists, serial killers — by definition, they are not reasonable individuals. If they are deranged enough to perpetrate violence on such a monstrous scale, chances are they won’t pause beforehand to consider which state they’re in and what the maximum penalty might be if they are caught, lose their jury trail and exhaust all their appeals.
Common sense is borne out by research — information from the Death Penalty Information Center shows that states without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates than states with the death penalty.
Chenault says so himself — “People who commit the most monstrous of crimes will not have the opportunity to reoffend if a death sentence is imposed … while I don’t believe it’s a deterrent to crime, I believe it should be an option for the justice system to brandish against the most heinous unremorseful criminals in our society.”
Protection of human rights and safety should be the highest priority of our justice and related social systems. If even Chenault doesn’t believe the death penalty will deter violent crime, what’s the point of introducing the measure?
Time and discussion would be much better spent on other aims — strengthening sentencing for the most heinous crimes, helping murder victims’ families and investing in education, rehabilitation, employment and social service programs proven to help prevent crime and keep criminals from reoffending.
Let’s breathe life into those areas and keep the death penalty buried.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Guest editorial: Alaskans vigilant against threats to gun rights
Legislation recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives reminds us that we must remain vigilant in the defense of our Second Amendment rights. Gun owners in Alaska and across the nation have expressed great concern about the introduction of H.R. 45, The Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act.
H.R. 45, introduced by U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., would require any person owning a handgun or semiautomatic firearm to obtain a federal firearms license. To apply for this license, individuals would have to submit to thumb-printing and release their medical records. The bill would even make it a crime for gun owners to change their addresses without notifying the attorney general.
First, let me reassure all Alaskans that I adamantly am opposed to H.R. 45. The bill would be impossible to enact, unacceptably invasive and likely is unconstitutional. The legislation has gained no support and stands zero chance of passage.
But the legislation has served one purpose: It’s a reminder that Americans must remain vigilant in the protection of our constitutional rights. While we must not take actions that would endanger the public, I applaud the many Alaskans who have taken the time to gather in opposition to this legislation. Gun owners absolutely are right to take notice and oppose efforts to erode the Second Amendment, and I stand ready to lend my support.
Despite potential threats, gun owners celebrated a victory last year with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. For the first time, the high court unequivocally upheld an individual’s constitutional right to bear arms. The majority opinion said “there seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
I was pleased to support Dick Heller in his challenge of the D.C. gun ban by joining a group of 55 U.S. senators in a friend-of-the-court brief expressing our belief that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual’s right to bear arms. Last month, the Senate passed legislation, which I cosponsored, that would fully realize the promise of the Heller decision by eliminating onerous gun control rules in D.C.
Additionally, in 2007, I supported efforts to bring common sense to firearm rules on public lands. These efforts became successful last year with a new rule requiring federal agencies to defer to state laws regarding concealed firearms in national parks. I am pleased with the new rule and have cosponsored legislation to expand and make the rule permanent. In addition, the 110th Congress passed important legislation to bring fairness to the background check system. I also backed efforts to protect veterans from being improperly stripped of their Second Amendment rights.
The new year has brought a new Congress and a new administration. I am pleased by President Barack Obama’s campaign statements in support of the Second Amendment. However, I remain wary of those in the administration and in Congress who would seek to restrict our rights.
Rest assured that I will keep a watchful eye on attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights and vigorously will oppose them should they come before the U.S. Senate.
U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski has represented Alaska in the U.S. Senate since 2002.
H.R. 45, introduced by U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., would require any person owning a handgun or semiautomatic firearm to obtain a federal firearms license. To apply for this license, individuals would have to submit to thumb-printing and release their medical records. The bill would even make it a crime for gun owners to change their addresses without notifying the attorney general.
First, let me reassure all Alaskans that I adamantly am opposed to H.R. 45. The bill would be impossible to enact, unacceptably invasive and likely is unconstitutional. The legislation has gained no support and stands zero chance of passage.
But the legislation has served one purpose: It’s a reminder that Americans must remain vigilant in the protection of our constitutional rights. While we must not take actions that would endanger the public, I applaud the many Alaskans who have taken the time to gather in opposition to this legislation. Gun owners absolutely are right to take notice and oppose efforts to erode the Second Amendment, and I stand ready to lend my support.
Despite potential threats, gun owners celebrated a victory last year with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. For the first time, the high court unequivocally upheld an individual’s constitutional right to bear arms. The majority opinion said “there seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
I was pleased to support Dick Heller in his challenge of the D.C. gun ban by joining a group of 55 U.S. senators in a friend-of-the-court brief expressing our belief that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual’s right to bear arms. Last month, the Senate passed legislation, which I cosponsored, that would fully realize the promise of the Heller decision by eliminating onerous gun control rules in D.C.
Additionally, in 2007, I supported efforts to bring common sense to firearm rules on public lands. These efforts became successful last year with a new rule requiring federal agencies to defer to state laws regarding concealed firearms in national parks. I am pleased with the new rule and have cosponsored legislation to expand and make the rule permanent. In addition, the 110th Congress passed important legislation to bring fairness to the background check system. I also backed efforts to protect veterans from being improperly stripped of their Second Amendment rights.
The new year has brought a new Congress and a new administration. I am pleased by President Barack Obama’s campaign statements in support of the Second Amendment. However, I remain wary of those in the administration and in Congress who would seek to restrict our rights.
Rest assured that I will keep a watchful eye on attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights and vigorously will oppose them should they come before the U.S. Senate.
U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski has represented Alaska in the U.S. Senate since 2002.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Editorial: Homeless doesn’t have to be hopeless
Growth for some organizations is bittersweet. For Love INC, organizers are happy to finally be able to expand services to include transitional housing for people without homes, even if it’s only on a limited basis so far. It’s a goal the group has been working toward for years, and Love INC is poised establish to a consistent, sustainable program.
It’s coming just in time, as economic woes are putting more people in need of Love INC’s services.
“In December it was so cold, and we said, ‘We’ve got to do something,’” said Ingrid Edgerly, executive director.
The organization worked out an arrangement with a local hotel to rent out rooms to those needing housing for a steeply discounted rate. The money comes from donations from businesses and organizations in the area. It’s a shining example of how a community support net should work — people see a need, they decide to step up and figure out a way to meet it and others jump on board to support those efforts.
But it’s not nearly enough. In 2007 there were already 400 to 500 people who considered themselves homeless on the Kenai Peninsula, according to the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. More recent figures aren’t available yet, but Edgerly can attest to the fact that those numbers are growing, just as their requests for services are.
People don’t have to be standing on street corners or sleeping in boxes to be homeless, and it’s not a situation most people find themselves in by choice. Especially these days, any unexpected cost or unforeseen circumstance can lead someone to eviction.
And neighbors don’t have to make six figures to help. Donating what they can, when they can goes a long way toward helping Love INC extend its reach to housing.
It’s coming just in time, as economic woes are putting more people in need of Love INC’s services.
“In December it was so cold, and we said, ‘We’ve got to do something,’” said Ingrid Edgerly, executive director.
The organization worked out an arrangement with a local hotel to rent out rooms to those needing housing for a steeply discounted rate. The money comes from donations from businesses and organizations in the area. It’s a shining example of how a community support net should work — people see a need, they decide to step up and figure out a way to meet it and others jump on board to support those efforts.
But it’s not nearly enough. In 2007 there were already 400 to 500 people who considered themselves homeless on the Kenai Peninsula, according to the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. More recent figures aren’t available yet, but Edgerly can attest to the fact that those numbers are growing, just as their requests for services are.
People don’t have to be standing on street corners or sleeping in boxes to be homeless, and it’s not a situation most people find themselves in by choice. Especially these days, any unexpected cost or unforeseen circumstance can lead someone to eviction.
And neighbors don’t have to make six figures to help. Donating what they can, when they can goes a long way toward helping Love INC extend its reach to housing.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Guest editorial: Where the heart is?
One fact underlies much of what has gone on during the first 50 years of statehood — most Alaskans are not from here. While in rural Alaska the population is largely Native and native-born, for urban Alaska almost 80 percent of my generation were born somewhere else.
We were the adventuresome generation that came north in the decades just before and after statehood, ready to “try it for a while,” but with no intention of staying forever. In casual conversation we asked, “Where are you from?” And we answered whichever state we emigrated from.
We became absorbed in the wonder of Alaska. Soon the camper gave way to a rental, and the part-time seasonal job gave way to full-time employment. We got married and had children and upgraded, if we were lucky, to a job with benefits, home ownership and cars that actually started in winter. Time flew.
Then came that fateful phone call. Mom called from several time zones away. After the kids talked to the grandmother they knew as a voice on the phone, she said something like, “Dad’s not doing so well, and we sure miss the grandchildren. When are you coming home?”
At that moment the question, “Where are you from?” became a more profound question of identity, family and soul: Where’s home? Some were just here for money or power and leaving was easy. Others left reluctantly. But many stayed and we became a conflicted generation.
On one hand we loved Alaska — we hiked, camped, skied, built businesses and careers and voted. But gnawing at our hearts was an obligation to family and the subconscious bond, if environmental philosopher Paul Shepard is right, to the place we lived in late childhood just before adolescence turned our thoughts to the opposite sex. Late childhood is known to be a time of increasing independence from parents, but, Shepard suggests, that dependence is replaced by a bond to the natural place of that time in our lives. The bond is exemplified by the fort in the woods, or the wildest place we can find at age 12, where the curriculum is the light, the sounds and smells of the landscape that structure the mind and provide comfort, context and understanding for the rest of our lives.
Some of us managed to transfer that place to Alaska, but it took decades. Now our children are the ones who built their fort in the woods, and it was Alaska woods. They have Alaska subconsciously embedded in their psyche. Unlike most of us, they are from here, but they too are conflicted.
That’s because we have tragically brought them up to be successful according to an Outside standard. “You’re a good student, you should go to Stanford,” some high school teacher told them, and so they did. The forces of popular culture define success in terms of New York, Washington or Los Angeles and those left behind are the implied losers. As one student editorial writer put it several years ago in the Northern Light student newspaper: “We don’t go to UAA because we want to, we go because we have to.” Second best — or at least the perception of it.
So the 50 years of statehood has resulted in an older generation conflicted by the question of, “Where’s home?” and a second generation asking, “Why stay?”
Many have resolved these personal conflicts, but many have not. It will take another 50 years to fully acknowledge that the answers lie all around us. The generation being born now will, despite globalization and Hollywood, need to think of home, identity and sanity in terms of the circumpolar north.
With luck and purpose, 50 years from now the third and emerging fourth generations after Alaska statehood will have built a culture of the North guided by Native tradition expressed in history, science, sport, art, music, literature and poetry that embraces the place for what it is. They, and we, must recognize that our destiny is as Northern people in a Northern land with an unparalleled landscape and a wealth of sustainable energy upon which a sustainable, and therefore sovereign and equitable, society can be built.
As for now — we need to make decisions that will allow future generations of Alaskans to create the great Northern society we have not.
Alan Boraas is a professor of anthropology at Kenai Peninsula College. This column first appeared in the Anchorage Daily News on Jan. 10.
We were the adventuresome generation that came north in the decades just before and after statehood, ready to “try it for a while,” but with no intention of staying forever. In casual conversation we asked, “Where are you from?” And we answered whichever state we emigrated from.
We became absorbed in the wonder of Alaska. Soon the camper gave way to a rental, and the part-time seasonal job gave way to full-time employment. We got married and had children and upgraded, if we were lucky, to a job with benefits, home ownership and cars that actually started in winter. Time flew.
Then came that fateful phone call. Mom called from several time zones away. After the kids talked to the grandmother they knew as a voice on the phone, she said something like, “Dad’s not doing so well, and we sure miss the grandchildren. When are you coming home?”
At that moment the question, “Where are you from?” became a more profound question of identity, family and soul: Where’s home? Some were just here for money or power and leaving was easy. Others left reluctantly. But many stayed and we became a conflicted generation.
On one hand we loved Alaska — we hiked, camped, skied, built businesses and careers and voted. But gnawing at our hearts was an obligation to family and the subconscious bond, if environmental philosopher Paul Shepard is right, to the place we lived in late childhood just before adolescence turned our thoughts to the opposite sex. Late childhood is known to be a time of increasing independence from parents, but, Shepard suggests, that dependence is replaced by a bond to the natural place of that time in our lives. The bond is exemplified by the fort in the woods, or the wildest place we can find at age 12, where the curriculum is the light, the sounds and smells of the landscape that structure the mind and provide comfort, context and understanding for the rest of our lives.
Some of us managed to transfer that place to Alaska, but it took decades. Now our children are the ones who built their fort in the woods, and it was Alaska woods. They have Alaska subconsciously embedded in their psyche. Unlike most of us, they are from here, but they too are conflicted.
That’s because we have tragically brought them up to be successful according to an Outside standard. “You’re a good student, you should go to Stanford,” some high school teacher told them, and so they did. The forces of popular culture define success in terms of New York, Washington or Los Angeles and those left behind are the implied losers. As one student editorial writer put it several years ago in the Northern Light student newspaper: “We don’t go to UAA because we want to, we go because we have to.” Second best — or at least the perception of it.
So the 50 years of statehood has resulted in an older generation conflicted by the question of, “Where’s home?” and a second generation asking, “Why stay?”
Many have resolved these personal conflicts, but many have not. It will take another 50 years to fully acknowledge that the answers lie all around us. The generation being born now will, despite globalization and Hollywood, need to think of home, identity and sanity in terms of the circumpolar north.
With luck and purpose, 50 years from now the third and emerging fourth generations after Alaska statehood will have built a culture of the North guided by Native tradition expressed in history, science, sport, art, music, literature and poetry that embraces the place for what it is. They, and we, must recognize that our destiny is as Northern people in a Northern land with an unparalleled landscape and a wealth of sustainable energy upon which a sustainable, and therefore sovereign and equitable, society can be built.
As for now — we need to make decisions that will allow future generations of Alaskans to create the great Northern society we have not.
Alan Boraas is a professor of anthropology at Kenai Peninsula College. This column first appeared in the Anchorage Daily News on Jan. 10.
Editorial — Speak truth to power?
Hikes in energy costs over the past year have been a rude awakening on the central Kenai Peninsula to the fact that abundant, cheap energy is a luxury, not a right, and certainly not a guarantee. The peninsula, like most of the country, had it good for a long time, and so was able to put off the difficult discussions and decisions about power generation that other countries have been struggling with.
Not any longer.
The Homer Electric Association Board of Directors made a good decision Feb. 10 to initiate a power supply study before committing to buying electricity from the Healy coal project.
The goal of the independent study is to provide the board with a cost-benefit analysis of possible power generation sources, including natural gas, coal and various renewable energies. “The study will consider all factors involved in power production, including possible future fuel costs, regulatory issues, reliability, and most importantly, the impact it will have on the rates paid by our members,” said board president Debbie Debnam.
Now is the time to wean our dependence off fossil fuels for power generation. Regardless of where one stands on the environmental issues of burning oil, natural gas and coal for fuel, the financial ramifications of doing so can’t be ignored. On the peninsula, it stares us in the face with each electric bill and heating bill.
Fossil fuels come with a cost —and it’s a rising one. Not only are supplies of natural gas and oil dwindling, the price of relying on them for our main power source is rising. Switching to coal would put us on the same path down the road.
There’s no time like the present to change that path. Our hope is this study prompts the HEA board to commit to developing renewable sources of energy. It will mean more money up front, but that investment will pay off when electric rates aren’t so shackled to fossil fuels. That’s the kind of “green” movement everyone can get behind.
Not any longer.
The Homer Electric Association Board of Directors made a good decision Feb. 10 to initiate a power supply study before committing to buying electricity from the Healy coal project.
The goal of the independent study is to provide the board with a cost-benefit analysis of possible power generation sources, including natural gas, coal and various renewable energies. “The study will consider all factors involved in power production, including possible future fuel costs, regulatory issues, reliability, and most importantly, the impact it will have on the rates paid by our members,” said board president Debbie Debnam.
Now is the time to wean our dependence off fossil fuels for power generation. Regardless of where one stands on the environmental issues of burning oil, natural gas and coal for fuel, the financial ramifications of doing so can’t be ignored. On the peninsula, it stares us in the face with each electric bill and heating bill.
Fossil fuels come with a cost —and it’s a rising one. Not only are supplies of natural gas and oil dwindling, the price of relying on them for our main power source is rising. Switching to coal would put us on the same path down the road.
There’s no time like the present to change that path. Our hope is this study prompts the HEA board to commit to developing renewable sources of energy. It will mean more money up front, but that investment will pay off when electric rates aren’t so shackled to fossil fuels. That’s the kind of “green” movement everyone can get behind.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Guest editorial: Joint effort needed to study belugas now, before it’s too late
Should belugas be protected as an endangered species? This is really several questions in one:
Do belugas warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act? Definitely. The population has little chance of long-term survival unless its size can be increased and kept above 1,000 whales.
Wouldn’t the problem disappear as soon as the last beluga dies? Wouldn’t we save a fortune and years of trouble by covertly killing all the remaining belugas? No! That’s like saying the way to way to cure liver disease is by cutting out your liver. That kind of “cure” can be worse than the disease.
Don't fall for the myth that ecological disruptions lack economic and social consequences. Perhaps the best-known marine example is impacts to commercial fishing when sea otter numbers crashed along the central Pacific coast. Without their predation on sea urchins, the urchins did so much damage to kelp forests that fish dependent on these forests crashed. A “balance” between predator and prey numbers is vital to the health of an ecosystem.
Hasn’t the decline in belugas actually helped fishermen? We don’t know. Granted, belugas compete with salmon for herring prey; and belugas eat salmon. But whether those losses outweigh benefits provided by belugas is still impossible to say. Ecological impacts of changing beluga numbers are largely unknown, despite decades of requests by biologists for funding to study this.
Failure of governments to provide adequate support hasn’t made the problem go away; it’s just gotten worse and more expensive to cure. Had we been working on this full steam for the past two decades, we’d have solid answers in hand and have been able to innovate minimal-cost technologies for keeping human impacts within tolerable limits.
Unfortunately, local and state governments waited to the 11th hour and their feet are still dragging. With every passing month, chances of success fall and potential costs rise.
Would the benefits of protection outweigh the costs? Cost-benefit ratios vary from person to person, and community to community, depending on who reaps the benefits vs. who pays the costs. Some costs could be felt very quickly, for instance if beluga protection were to preclude mining coal on the western side of Cook Inlet or require installation of more thorough treatment of sewage and other effluents from Anchorage. However, until we know a lot more about how our activities impact belugas, we will have little basis for identifying needed protections, much less for evaluating their costs.
It’s time to pull our collective heads out of the sand and quickly ramp up studies of beluga ecology and of how we humans impact them. The sooner we have this information, the more effectively and efficiently we can identify and implement protective measures that meet beluga needs with minimal economic and social impact.
What steps should we take? Identify legal requirements under the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and other relevant statutes, court decisions and agency regulations.
We all know what a nightmare government red tape can be. This is partly a consequence of antiquated methods of educating ourselves about legalities. Invaluable aid has been provided by uploading legal information onto the Web where it is accessible to search engines. But even with that assistance, some laws, like the Marine Mammal Protection Act, are so convoluted that major sections defy logical analysis – a job I once attempted as an employee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Reading statutory law is just a first step. We also need to review case law and agency regulations. Some “laws” need to be clarified and/or made more user-friendly. It’s not enough to have the information available. You’ll never find the information you need unless you know enough to ask the right questions and how to interpret the answers. So-called “expert systems” employing artificial intelligence — way beyond that in search engines — could be of great assistance, and save folks a fortune in legal fees.
Business functions best in a climate where legal gray areas are minimized as much as possible so that we can anticipate with fair reliability which of our actions would be judged legal vs. illegal (as well as which conservation measures would be effective vs. ineffective). This may require being very proactive, perhaps in revising the MMPA.
For each municipality, business or other entity to tackle these challenges individually would be intolerably expensive. A far cheaper alternative is to do much of it collectively. For example, the Kenai Peninsula Borough might solicit donations from local industries and small businesses as matching funds for federal and state grants. Think of it as an economic stimulus package for Southcentral Alaska.
Every million dollars saved is another million dollars earned — tax free.
Dr. Stephen Stringham earned his master of science degree at the University of Alaska studying moose, and his doctorate degree studying bears. He is the author of five books on Alaska’s wildlife.
Do belugas warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act? Definitely. The population has little chance of long-term survival unless its size can be increased and kept above 1,000 whales.
Wouldn’t the problem disappear as soon as the last beluga dies? Wouldn’t we save a fortune and years of trouble by covertly killing all the remaining belugas? No! That’s like saying the way to way to cure liver disease is by cutting out your liver. That kind of “cure” can be worse than the disease.
Don't fall for the myth that ecological disruptions lack economic and social consequences. Perhaps the best-known marine example is impacts to commercial fishing when sea otter numbers crashed along the central Pacific coast. Without their predation on sea urchins, the urchins did so much damage to kelp forests that fish dependent on these forests crashed. A “balance” between predator and prey numbers is vital to the health of an ecosystem.
Hasn’t the decline in belugas actually helped fishermen? We don’t know. Granted, belugas compete with salmon for herring prey; and belugas eat salmon. But whether those losses outweigh benefits provided by belugas is still impossible to say. Ecological impacts of changing beluga numbers are largely unknown, despite decades of requests by biologists for funding to study this.
Failure of governments to provide adequate support hasn’t made the problem go away; it’s just gotten worse and more expensive to cure. Had we been working on this full steam for the past two decades, we’d have solid answers in hand and have been able to innovate minimal-cost technologies for keeping human impacts within tolerable limits.
Unfortunately, local and state governments waited to the 11th hour and their feet are still dragging. With every passing month, chances of success fall and potential costs rise.
Would the benefits of protection outweigh the costs? Cost-benefit ratios vary from person to person, and community to community, depending on who reaps the benefits vs. who pays the costs. Some costs could be felt very quickly, for instance if beluga protection were to preclude mining coal on the western side of Cook Inlet or require installation of more thorough treatment of sewage and other effluents from Anchorage. However, until we know a lot more about how our activities impact belugas, we will have little basis for identifying needed protections, much less for evaluating their costs.
It’s time to pull our collective heads out of the sand and quickly ramp up studies of beluga ecology and of how we humans impact them. The sooner we have this information, the more effectively and efficiently we can identify and implement protective measures that meet beluga needs with minimal economic and social impact.
What steps should we take? Identify legal requirements under the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and other relevant statutes, court decisions and agency regulations.
We all know what a nightmare government red tape can be. This is partly a consequence of antiquated methods of educating ourselves about legalities. Invaluable aid has been provided by uploading legal information onto the Web where it is accessible to search engines. But even with that assistance, some laws, like the Marine Mammal Protection Act, are so convoluted that major sections defy logical analysis – a job I once attempted as an employee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Reading statutory law is just a first step. We also need to review case law and agency regulations. Some “laws” need to be clarified and/or made more user-friendly. It’s not enough to have the information available. You’ll never find the information you need unless you know enough to ask the right questions and how to interpret the answers. So-called “expert systems” employing artificial intelligence — way beyond that in search engines — could be of great assistance, and save folks a fortune in legal fees.
Business functions best in a climate where legal gray areas are minimized as much as possible so that we can anticipate with fair reliability which of our actions would be judged legal vs. illegal (as well as which conservation measures would be effective vs. ineffective). This may require being very proactive, perhaps in revising the MMPA.
For each municipality, business or other entity to tackle these challenges individually would be intolerably expensive. A far cheaper alternative is to do much of it collectively. For example, the Kenai Peninsula Borough might solicit donations from local industries and small businesses as matching funds for federal and state grants. Think of it as an economic stimulus package for Southcentral Alaska.
Every million dollars saved is another million dollars earned — tax free.
Dr. Stephen Stringham earned his master of science degree at the University of Alaska studying moose, and his doctorate degree studying bears. He is the author of five books on Alaska’s wildlife.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Editorial: Image is everything in lead-up to hydro
For Kenai Hydro, the Homer Electric Association partnership that’s pursuing hydroelectric projects in the Moose Pass area, image is just about everything when it comes to gaining public support.
That’s why invoking the Low-Impact Hydropower Institute is a powerful sign. It’s an independent, well-respected organization that certifies certain hydropower projects as “low-impact,” meaning they meet stringent criteria meant to ensure protection of fish and wildlife habitat, recreation and historic interests.
Kenai Hydro has included the LIHI logo in its presentations and started off saying it intended to apply for certification for its projects. At recent meetings in Cooper Landing and Moose Pass, however, they’ve said they’re not eligible because the LIHI doesn’t certify new projects built after 1998. But they still use the logo and say they’ll follow the LIHI’s guidelines to create low-impact projects.
The change caused some raised eyebrows. In Cooper Landing, a resident requested that Kenai Hydro stop using LIHI’s logo because it creates the false impression that the organization has some involvement or association with the group, with is not true. In Moose Pass, Bruce Jaffa said he’s concerned that Kenai Hydro didn’t get all this straightened out before they started telling the public about it.
“I think it was a little wishful thinking that they could include that,” he said. “When you see a drastic change like that early on it gives you some reason to wonder why it wasn’t caught earlier.”
Fred Ayer, executive director of the LIHI, said he hasn’t been contacted by HEA or Kenai Hydro and that, “If they are using our logo, they are using it without our permission and in a way that certainly could confuse stakeholders.”
Ayer said the group’s focus is dams, and it does not support the construction of new dams, which is why it doesn’t certify new hydro dams built after 1998 — the year before LIHI was formed. But it is considering new, nondam technology for hydro and plans to create criteria for certifying new facilities. Kenai Hydro is planning dam structures.
If Kenai Hydro’s mistake in being ineligible for LIHI certification was a simple oversight, that’s one thing. But to know they don’t qualify and still use the LIHI image gives the impression of an association that doesn’t exist. It’s laudable and responsible for Kenai Hydro to want to follow the low-impact criteria, but without the LIHI having a say in whether they’re actually following it or not negates the whole purpose of the certification. Who is Kenai Hydro to say its creating low-impact projects along the lines of LIHI, without an impartial viewer checking to verify the claim?
Facts, figures, schematics and all the technical data that will come from environmental and design research will matter most to regulators in deciding whether to grant approval to build the projects — whether it’s one or all four, the way they’re envisioned now or in some revised state.
That information will matter to folks keeping close tabs on the development of the projects, too, but in this early stage of the process, when first impressions can lead to knee-jerk reactions of support or opposition, appearance reigns supreme.
Kenai Hydro needs to show it’s concerned about the environment it’s looking to alter and that it cares about protecting fish and wildlife habitat, recreational uses and scenic beauty. Maybe not as much as area residents do, because playing the “I hike up there once a year” card won’t win any credibility with locals, but at least enough to make people believe they’ll do what they can to minimize impacts from the projects.
Kenai Hydro’s desire to be low-impact is important and following the guidelines of the LIHI of its own accord is admirable, but to use the group’s name and logo to lend credibility to its projects, when in fact there is no association, just plain looks bad.
And that’s the wrong image to create.
That’s why invoking the Low-Impact Hydropower Institute is a powerful sign. It’s an independent, well-respected organization that certifies certain hydropower projects as “low-impact,” meaning they meet stringent criteria meant to ensure protection of fish and wildlife habitat, recreation and historic interests.
Kenai Hydro has included the LIHI logo in its presentations and started off saying it intended to apply for certification for its projects. At recent meetings in Cooper Landing and Moose Pass, however, they’ve said they’re not eligible because the LIHI doesn’t certify new projects built after 1998. But they still use the logo and say they’ll follow the LIHI’s guidelines to create low-impact projects.
The change caused some raised eyebrows. In Cooper Landing, a resident requested that Kenai Hydro stop using LIHI’s logo because it creates the false impression that the organization has some involvement or association with the group, with is not true. In Moose Pass, Bruce Jaffa said he’s concerned that Kenai Hydro didn’t get all this straightened out before they started telling the public about it.
“I think it was a little wishful thinking that they could include that,” he said. “When you see a drastic change like that early on it gives you some reason to wonder why it wasn’t caught earlier.”
Fred Ayer, executive director of the LIHI, said he hasn’t been contacted by HEA or Kenai Hydro and that, “If they are using our logo, they are using it without our permission and in a way that certainly could confuse stakeholders.”
Ayer said the group’s focus is dams, and it does not support the construction of new dams, which is why it doesn’t certify new hydro dams built after 1998 — the year before LIHI was formed. But it is considering new, nondam technology for hydro and plans to create criteria for certifying new facilities. Kenai Hydro is planning dam structures.
If Kenai Hydro’s mistake in being ineligible for LIHI certification was a simple oversight, that’s one thing. But to know they don’t qualify and still use the LIHI image gives the impression of an association that doesn’t exist. It’s laudable and responsible for Kenai Hydro to want to follow the low-impact criteria, but without the LIHI having a say in whether they’re actually following it or not negates the whole purpose of the certification. Who is Kenai Hydro to say its creating low-impact projects along the lines of LIHI, without an impartial viewer checking to verify the claim?
Facts, figures, schematics and all the technical data that will come from environmental and design research will matter most to regulators in deciding whether to grant approval to build the projects — whether it’s one or all four, the way they’re envisioned now or in some revised state.
That information will matter to folks keeping close tabs on the development of the projects, too, but in this early stage of the process, when first impressions can lead to knee-jerk reactions of support or opposition, appearance reigns supreme.
Kenai Hydro needs to show it’s concerned about the environment it’s looking to alter and that it cares about protecting fish and wildlife habitat, recreational uses and scenic beauty. Maybe not as much as area residents do, because playing the “I hike up there once a year” card won’t win any credibility with locals, but at least enough to make people believe they’ll do what they can to minimize impacts from the projects.
Kenai Hydro’s desire to be low-impact is important and following the guidelines of the LIHI of its own accord is admirable, but to use the group’s name and logo to lend credibility to its projects, when in fact there is no association, just plain looks bad.
And that’s the wrong image to create.
Guest editorial: America’s responsibility, opportunity as an Arctic nation
Although many in the Lower 48 did not pay much attention, the White House recently released an important new policy statement dealing with an area of the world that is close to the hearts of many Alaskans — the Arctic.
The Arctic Policy 2009 calls for enhanced security, increased environmental protection, sustainable energy development, international scientific cooperation and greater involvement of indigenous people in the Arctic. U.S. Arctic Policy was last updated in 1994, but the Arctic is vastly different today than it was 15 years ago. The administration’s updated Arctic policy recognizes the United States as an Arctic nation — thanks to Alaska’s geographic location — and details new objectives, priorities and needs for the region.
Climate change and the environmental changes that come with it are occurring at an unprecedented rate in the Arctic. The polar ice cap is melting and areas that have never been accessible to energy development, shipping, and tourism have been opening up during the summer, leading some to predict that one day in the near future the fabled Northwest Passage, connecting the Atlantic Ocean with the Pacific Ocean, might be a regular shipping route. This is an intriguing prospect for Alaskans.
A more accessible Arctic Ocean will require enhanced environmental protection in order to protect the vulnerable Arctic ecosystem. We must find the balance to allow for reasonable development of our vast natural resources while maintaining strong protections for the environment. Maritime activities relating to the transportation of goods, oil and gas, tourism and research will surely increase as marine access to the Arctic Ocean increases. Marine transportation through an ice-diminished Arctic has the potential to reduce shipping routes by thousands of miles, thereby greatly increasing the amount of maritime traffic just off our shores.
The distance through the Northern Sea Route reduces the Hamburg to Yokahama voyage by almost 5,000 miles. Recognizing that there will be increased activity in this area represents perhaps the greatest challenge and need for international cooperation. This is action that needs to be taken now, not after a major maritime disaster occurs.
The Arctic, however, isn’t just about responsibility — it offers opportunity, as well. We in Alaska know we have many of the resources that hold the key to bringing down the cost of energy in this country and reducing our dependence on unstable foreign sources of energy. Recently, the United States Geological Survey estimated that the Alaskan Arctic might contain more than 30 billion barrels of oil and 221 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in its undiscovered reserves.
There is also tremendous opportunity for Alaska to be even more of a leader in international scientific research. Some of the best scientific minds are already working in Alaska in our universities and in the field on climate and Arctic research.
While energy production in the Arctic is vital, we must not forget about Alaska’s first peoples of the North: the Inupiat, Athabascan and Yupik. The dramatic changes that are occurring may have a profound impact on our environment and their traditional way of life. Preserving the culture, languages and subsistence lifestyle of these Alaskans must remain paramount in our endeavors. That is why they must be involved in the political, legal and scientific decision-making to ensure that their voice, as the residents of the Arctic, will be heard.
When Russia planted a flag on the sea floor beneath the North Pole in 2007, seeking to claim almost half of the Arctic, it sent a strong message to Alaskans and the rest of the world. While the United States is working to map our own extended continental shelf, the best way to secure international recognition of our claim is by ratifying the Convention on the Law of the Sea. We cannot dispute other claims that might overlap with ours until we do. This intense interest in claiming Arctic territory is primarily driven by the quest for Arctic resources. Until recently, the resources of the Arctic were deemed to be too difficult and expensive to develop, but the region is now being explored and developed at an unprecedented rate.
Alaska and the United States must prepare for a melting Arctic and the international implications that brings. Our neighbors, Canada and Russia, are continuing to move forward with their claims and the development of their offshore energy resources and shipping routes. It is crucial to Alaska that the United States engage in multilateral discussions to establish strong international agreements to manage activities in the Arctic. If the U.S. is going to be a leader in this vital region, it is time to step up to the plate. Congress and the executive branch need to work together to implement this new presidential directive and give the Arctic the attention it deserves.
Sen. Murkowski, R-Alaska, the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, hosted the eighth Conference of Arctic Parliamentarians in Fairbanks in August.
The Arctic Policy 2009 calls for enhanced security, increased environmental protection, sustainable energy development, international scientific cooperation and greater involvement of indigenous people in the Arctic. U.S. Arctic Policy was last updated in 1994, but the Arctic is vastly different today than it was 15 years ago. The administration’s updated Arctic policy recognizes the United States as an Arctic nation — thanks to Alaska’s geographic location — and details new objectives, priorities and needs for the region.
Climate change and the environmental changes that come with it are occurring at an unprecedented rate in the Arctic. The polar ice cap is melting and areas that have never been accessible to energy development, shipping, and tourism have been opening up during the summer, leading some to predict that one day in the near future the fabled Northwest Passage, connecting the Atlantic Ocean with the Pacific Ocean, might be a regular shipping route. This is an intriguing prospect for Alaskans.
A more accessible Arctic Ocean will require enhanced environmental protection in order to protect the vulnerable Arctic ecosystem. We must find the balance to allow for reasonable development of our vast natural resources while maintaining strong protections for the environment. Maritime activities relating to the transportation of goods, oil and gas, tourism and research will surely increase as marine access to the Arctic Ocean increases. Marine transportation through an ice-diminished Arctic has the potential to reduce shipping routes by thousands of miles, thereby greatly increasing the amount of maritime traffic just off our shores.
The distance through the Northern Sea Route reduces the Hamburg to Yokahama voyage by almost 5,000 miles. Recognizing that there will be increased activity in this area represents perhaps the greatest challenge and need for international cooperation. This is action that needs to be taken now, not after a major maritime disaster occurs.
The Arctic, however, isn’t just about responsibility — it offers opportunity, as well. We in Alaska know we have many of the resources that hold the key to bringing down the cost of energy in this country and reducing our dependence on unstable foreign sources of energy. Recently, the United States Geological Survey estimated that the Alaskan Arctic might contain more than 30 billion barrels of oil and 221 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in its undiscovered reserves.
There is also tremendous opportunity for Alaska to be even more of a leader in international scientific research. Some of the best scientific minds are already working in Alaska in our universities and in the field on climate and Arctic research.
While energy production in the Arctic is vital, we must not forget about Alaska’s first peoples of the North: the Inupiat, Athabascan and Yupik. The dramatic changes that are occurring may have a profound impact on our environment and their traditional way of life. Preserving the culture, languages and subsistence lifestyle of these Alaskans must remain paramount in our endeavors. That is why they must be involved in the political, legal and scientific decision-making to ensure that their voice, as the residents of the Arctic, will be heard.
When Russia planted a flag on the sea floor beneath the North Pole in 2007, seeking to claim almost half of the Arctic, it sent a strong message to Alaskans and the rest of the world. While the United States is working to map our own extended continental shelf, the best way to secure international recognition of our claim is by ratifying the Convention on the Law of the Sea. We cannot dispute other claims that might overlap with ours until we do. This intense interest in claiming Arctic territory is primarily driven by the quest for Arctic resources. Until recently, the resources of the Arctic were deemed to be too difficult and expensive to develop, but the region is now being explored and developed at an unprecedented rate.
Alaska and the United States must prepare for a melting Arctic and the international implications that brings. Our neighbors, Canada and Russia, are continuing to move forward with their claims and the development of their offshore energy resources and shipping routes. It is crucial to Alaska that the United States engage in multilateral discussions to establish strong international agreements to manage activities in the Arctic. If the U.S. is going to be a leader in this vital region, it is time to step up to the plate. Congress and the executive branch need to work together to implement this new presidential directive and give the Arctic the attention it deserves.
Sen. Murkowski, R-Alaska, the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, hosted the eighth Conference of Arctic Parliamentarians in Fairbanks in August.
Guest editorial:Habitat partnership puts focuses on fish
Kenai Peninsula Fish Habitat Partnership is a conservation partnership developing on the Kenai Peninsula. This partnership is working with the National Fish Habitat Action Plan to protect, restore and enhance our area’s fish and aquatic communities.
KPFHP is one of several partnerships developed concurrently with the National Fish Habitat Plan, designed to raise awareness of fish initiatives, assign priorities and generate annual congressional support to improve aquatic habitat. National Fish Habitat Action Plan is all about locally driven efforts that build private and public partnerships to improve fish habitat. Fish Habitat Action Plan partnerships are self-identified, self-organized and self-directed communities of interest formed around geographic areas, keystone species or system types.
These partnerships are nonregulatory and voluntary; locally and regionally based; driven by grassroots partners; focused on protection, restoration and enhancement in key watersheds; science-based; linked nationally; sustainable and accountable; and nonallocative.
The KPFHP began with a letter from the National Fish Habitat Action Plan Board accepting our request to be considered a regional partner. Since that time, an ad hoc committee representing various interests has come together to begin working on a strategic plan addressing the needs of fish habitat across a “region.” The group has conducted several public outreach meetings across the Kenai Peninsula and will continue to seek input throughout the development of the strategic plan. Developing this plan under the guidance provided by the National Fish Habitat Action Plan is our first step in being accepted as a regional partner. We anticipate this process continuing through May of 2009 and will be updated regularly under the strategic plan section of the Web site, http://office.kenaiwatershed.org/KPFHP.
Working to protect fish habitat on the Kenai Peninsula should be a goal all interests could and should support.
KPFHP is one of several partnerships developed concurrently with the National Fish Habitat Plan, designed to raise awareness of fish initiatives, assign priorities and generate annual congressional support to improve aquatic habitat. National Fish Habitat Action Plan is all about locally driven efforts that build private and public partnerships to improve fish habitat. Fish Habitat Action Plan partnerships are self-identified, self-organized and self-directed communities of interest formed around geographic areas, keystone species or system types.
These partnerships are nonregulatory and voluntary; locally and regionally based; driven by grassroots partners; focused on protection, restoration and enhancement in key watersheds; science-based; linked nationally; sustainable and accountable; and nonallocative.
The KPFHP began with a letter from the National Fish Habitat Action Plan Board accepting our request to be considered a regional partner. Since that time, an ad hoc committee representing various interests has come together to begin working on a strategic plan addressing the needs of fish habitat across a “region.” The group has conducted several public outreach meetings across the Kenai Peninsula and will continue to seek input throughout the development of the strategic plan. Developing this plan under the guidance provided by the National Fish Habitat Action Plan is our first step in being accepted as a regional partner. We anticipate this process continuing through May of 2009 and will be updated regularly under the strategic plan section of the Web site, http://office.kenaiwatershed.org/KPFHP.
Working to protect fish habitat on the Kenai Peninsula should be a goal all interests could and should support.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Guest editorial: All power generation has an impact
The Kenai Peninsula hosts a couple hydroelectric generation facilities and a couple others were proposed in the past. With the ever-increasing costs of electricity, there are renewed activities looking into the feasibility of additional hydroelectric plants on the peninsula.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of rhetoric about these proposals that is misleading at best. A term being erroneously attached to the proposals and studies is “low impact.” However, hydroelectric power generation can hardly be called “low impact” when streams are completely dewatered or the entire biotic community is completely changed.
In order to generate electricity with water power, one needs a large volume of water that can be released on demand (whenever there is a demand for electricity). Also, in order to generate as much power as possible, the water needs a substantial “head.” That translates to mean the water source is dammed up as high as possible and allowed to generate power as the water is selectively released. The greater the height of the “head,” the greater the force the water exerts on the turbine impellers. That benefit of increased water height is why some of our well-known dams, like Hoover Dam or Grand Coolee, can generate so much electricity.
Besides aesthetic considerations, there are a number of very well-known impacts that dams always exert on a stream. Perhaps the first thing to understand is that any dam instantaneously changes the stream from a moving body of water into a lakelike reservoir. Virtually all stream species of algae, diatoms, insects, crustaceans, fish and associated animal life will be displaced by lake-associated species. All areas that were once valuable spawning sites for resident and anadromous fish will be filled with silt and sediments when the flow ceases. No further spawning will occur there. This stream disruption will continue as far upstream as the water is allowed to back up.
As a point of reference, the Kenai River gets backed up for almost 15 miles by the twice-daily tidal changes of 20 to 30 feet. Thus a lot of river or stream can be impacted by a relatively “low impact” dam.
Downstream of the impoundment there are other issues. Hydroelectric dams release water for power generation on a schedule that fits human power needs, not the stream needs. Most power is actually needed during daylight or normal working hours so more water is released during the day. Depending upon the size of the receiving stream, daily variations in water releases can raise or lower stream levels by a foot or more. Small streams can go from bank full conditions to drought levels on a daily basis. This unnatural fluctuation eliminates a great many stream organisms. While some stream invertebrates will remain in the now altered stream, the species assemblage will be unlike the original inhabitants and total biomass within the stream will be heavily reduced downstream of the dam. The invertebrate losses will then cause a heavy reduction in the fish populations that relied on them for food.
Since the stream below an impoundment has its flow closely regulated, there are no more floods. At first blush that may seem to be a good thing. However, streams benefit from periodic flooding and high waters. These events clear out fine particles deposited in the stream and re-sort the gravels into like-sized sections. Salmon look for these uniform-sized gravel beds to use for spawning.
Another seemingly subtle change caused by dams and impoundments is the temperature of the waters being released. Water coming from the bottom of a reservoir will be colder than the normal stream temperature and water released from the surface of the reservoir tends to be much warmer than normal stream water. Generally, the winter water outflow is warmer than normal and the summer water outflow is cooler than normal. Some large dams can produce detectable thermal changes in the outflow streams for dozens and dozens of miles downstream. The concern here is that we know many aquatic organisms depend upon temperature changes to signal times for migration, emergence, reproduction, etc. Thus, subtle changes in water temperatures on a seasonal and daily basis can disrupt the life cycles of the remaining organisms.
These are just a few of the changes a dam can exert upon a stream. If we are going to consider hydroelectric power generation on the Kenai Peninsula we will have to consider the tradeoffs and decide what we value most highly. These will be some difficult decisions. Remember, there is no “free lunch,” and there is no “low-impact” way to generate power.
David Wartinbee, Ph.D, J.D., is a biology professor at Kenai Peninsula College’s Kenai River Campus.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of rhetoric about these proposals that is misleading at best. A term being erroneously attached to the proposals and studies is “low impact.” However, hydroelectric power generation can hardly be called “low impact” when streams are completely dewatered or the entire biotic community is completely changed.
In order to generate electricity with water power, one needs a large volume of water that can be released on demand (whenever there is a demand for electricity). Also, in order to generate as much power as possible, the water needs a substantial “head.” That translates to mean the water source is dammed up as high as possible and allowed to generate power as the water is selectively released. The greater the height of the “head,” the greater the force the water exerts on the turbine impellers. That benefit of increased water height is why some of our well-known dams, like Hoover Dam or Grand Coolee, can generate so much electricity.
Besides aesthetic considerations, there are a number of very well-known impacts that dams always exert on a stream. Perhaps the first thing to understand is that any dam instantaneously changes the stream from a moving body of water into a lakelike reservoir. Virtually all stream species of algae, diatoms, insects, crustaceans, fish and associated animal life will be displaced by lake-associated species. All areas that were once valuable spawning sites for resident and anadromous fish will be filled with silt and sediments when the flow ceases. No further spawning will occur there. This stream disruption will continue as far upstream as the water is allowed to back up.
As a point of reference, the Kenai River gets backed up for almost 15 miles by the twice-daily tidal changes of 20 to 30 feet. Thus a lot of river or stream can be impacted by a relatively “low impact” dam.
Downstream of the impoundment there are other issues. Hydroelectric dams release water for power generation on a schedule that fits human power needs, not the stream needs. Most power is actually needed during daylight or normal working hours so more water is released during the day. Depending upon the size of the receiving stream, daily variations in water releases can raise or lower stream levels by a foot or more. Small streams can go from bank full conditions to drought levels on a daily basis. This unnatural fluctuation eliminates a great many stream organisms. While some stream invertebrates will remain in the now altered stream, the species assemblage will be unlike the original inhabitants and total biomass within the stream will be heavily reduced downstream of the dam. The invertebrate losses will then cause a heavy reduction in the fish populations that relied on them for food.
Since the stream below an impoundment has its flow closely regulated, there are no more floods. At first blush that may seem to be a good thing. However, streams benefit from periodic flooding and high waters. These events clear out fine particles deposited in the stream and re-sort the gravels into like-sized sections. Salmon look for these uniform-sized gravel beds to use for spawning.
Another seemingly subtle change caused by dams and impoundments is the temperature of the waters being released. Water coming from the bottom of a reservoir will be colder than the normal stream temperature and water released from the surface of the reservoir tends to be much warmer than normal stream water. Generally, the winter water outflow is warmer than normal and the summer water outflow is cooler than normal. Some large dams can produce detectable thermal changes in the outflow streams for dozens and dozens of miles downstream. The concern here is that we know many aquatic organisms depend upon temperature changes to signal times for migration, emergence, reproduction, etc. Thus, subtle changes in water temperatures on a seasonal and daily basis can disrupt the life cycles of the remaining organisms.
These are just a few of the changes a dam can exert upon a stream. If we are going to consider hydroelectric power generation on the Kenai Peninsula we will have to consider the tradeoffs and decide what we value most highly. These will be some difficult decisions. Remember, there is no “free lunch,” and there is no “low-impact” way to generate power.
David Wartinbee, Ph.D, J.D., is a biology professor at Kenai Peninsula College’s Kenai River Campus.
Editorial: As the river churns ...
Just when it seems the Kenai River is on the road to recovery following news that hydrocarbon pollution has been cleaned up in July, results of a new study are stirring up renewed concern over the health of the river.
Robert Ruffner, executive director of the Kenai Watershed Forum, had a good news, bad news presentation for the Kenai Area Fishermen’s Coalition on Thursday.
The good: Test results from this summer show a dramatic reduction in hydrocarbon pollution in the lower reaches of the Kenai River, attributed to a regulation banning two-stroke outboard motors in favor of cleaner-burning, four-stroke models and direct fuel-injection two-strokes.
When the lower Kenai River was placed on the Environmental Protection Agency’s impaired listing due to pollution, tests found hydrocarbon levels at 20 to 25 parts per billion during peak fishing season in July, well over the limit of 10 ppb. In July 2008, those numbers were down to two to five ppb, Ruffner said.
There’s some discrepancy in the numbers, and water-quality testing will continue this summer to nail down the most accurate results possible. Ruffner said water levels and tides were high this summer, which may have aided in the dilution and flushing out of pollutants. And there’s some question over how the lab treated one of the four hydrocarbon compounds it tested for, which may have skewed results slightly higher than they should be.
Then there was the bad news: Turbidity testing from the summer shows significant spikes during late June and especially July, which Ruffner relates to peak boat use on the river.
Turbidity — muddy water — occurs naturally to some extent, but it appears that human activity is causing a literal stir on its own. Sediment in water can impact a fish’s ability to feed and spawn, and certain sizes of particles can lodge in gills and harm organisms. It’s also a sign of bank erosion.
The tricky part comes in determining how much impact is too much, and what should be done about it. The Kenai’s turbidity level can spike up to 40 or 50 NTUs (the measurement for turbidity) due to natural conditions. Human activity seems to be pushing it up significantly higher, to 150 NTUs.
But where’s the line when unnatural becomes unhealthy?
Common sense says there’s an impact from that much sediment being washed into the river, but science has yet to specifically identify the impact and quantify how serious it is.
Then comes the regulatory process to decide whether rules will change to address the issue.
After having just emerged from this process with hydrocarbons, it’d be nice to sit back and relax on the river for a while. But having a resource like the Kenai running through our backyards means we also have the ongoing duty of caring for it.
That duty may be laborious sometimes, but the Kenai River is worth it.
Robert Ruffner, executive director of the Kenai Watershed Forum, had a good news, bad news presentation for the Kenai Area Fishermen’s Coalition on Thursday.
The good: Test results from this summer show a dramatic reduction in hydrocarbon pollution in the lower reaches of the Kenai River, attributed to a regulation banning two-stroke outboard motors in favor of cleaner-burning, four-stroke models and direct fuel-injection two-strokes.
When the lower Kenai River was placed on the Environmental Protection Agency’s impaired listing due to pollution, tests found hydrocarbon levels at 20 to 25 parts per billion during peak fishing season in July, well over the limit of 10 ppb. In July 2008, those numbers were down to two to five ppb, Ruffner said.
There’s some discrepancy in the numbers, and water-quality testing will continue this summer to nail down the most accurate results possible. Ruffner said water levels and tides were high this summer, which may have aided in the dilution and flushing out of pollutants. And there’s some question over how the lab treated one of the four hydrocarbon compounds it tested for, which may have skewed results slightly higher than they should be.
Then there was the bad news: Turbidity testing from the summer shows significant spikes during late June and especially July, which Ruffner relates to peak boat use on the river.
Turbidity — muddy water — occurs naturally to some extent, but it appears that human activity is causing a literal stir on its own. Sediment in water can impact a fish’s ability to feed and spawn, and certain sizes of particles can lodge in gills and harm organisms. It’s also a sign of bank erosion.
The tricky part comes in determining how much impact is too much, and what should be done about it. The Kenai’s turbidity level can spike up to 40 or 50 NTUs (the measurement for turbidity) due to natural conditions. Human activity seems to be pushing it up significantly higher, to 150 NTUs.
But where’s the line when unnatural becomes unhealthy?
Common sense says there’s an impact from that much sediment being washed into the river, but science has yet to specifically identify the impact and quantify how serious it is.
Then comes the regulatory process to decide whether rules will change to address the issue.
After having just emerged from this process with hydrocarbons, it’d be nice to sit back and relax on the river for a while. But having a resource like the Kenai running through our backyards means we also have the ongoing duty of caring for it.
That duty may be laborious sometimes, but the Kenai River is worth it.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Editorial — Dome group plays campaign the right way
An effort to build an indoor, domed sports facility on the central Kenai Peninsula is what good government is all about.
Citizens want something. They think it will benefit the entire community, but they recognize there isn’t enough “free” money available on the magic financial tree of state and federal funds, grants and corporate donations to pay for it. So they volunteer to shoulder an extra tax burden to make it happen, and ask their neighbors to do the same.
In these days of bank bailouts, stock market collapses, housing market bubble bursts and retirement fund evaporations, coming on the heels of an era of pork barrel spending where following the money was more challenging than following an instruction book in Chinese, it’s refreshing to see an example of government straight out of civics 101.
People want something, they’re willing to pay for it so they ask their government to help provide it.
The group pursuing the sports dome, led by former borough mayor Mike Navarre, Kathy Gensel and Dale Sandahl, and supported by a who’s who cast of community leaders, is going about this in the best way possible. They want to establish a service area that would increase property taxes by a half mill to pay for the dome.
They’re forming a realistic estimate of the costs and scope of the project and are open about it with the community. They’re not telling people, “We’ll get grants, and the Legislature will come through and surely BP will be good for a million or so,” and adding (in fine print), “We’ll stick taxpayers with the rest of the bill.”
They’re not even attempting to convince people that the dome will pay for itself in user fees. It’s a good thing, because after the Soldotna Sports Center and Kenai Multipurpose Facility, citizens know recreation facilities tend to become black holes for public money. Instead, they’re telling people the truth: We’ll be paying a certain amount every year to operate this facility, and that’s OK. It’s not meant to make money, it’s a quality-of-life enhancement we’re willing to support.”
They do hope to get grants, legislative and donor funding, but they’re not even factoring that into the cost structure they’re presenting to the public. They’re telling people, “If we get this money, great, but if not, this is what it will cost to have this facility. We think it’s worth the cost, for the good of our kids and the entire community. We hope you think so, too.”
Whether people agree or not that the dome is worth an extra $50 a year on $100,000 of assessed property value, they can’t fault the process or allege that government’s trying to sneak something by them.
The dome group is holding a series of organizational meetings, where everyone is invited to come get information and ask questions. They’re talking to potential user groups and gaining their support. And they’re planning on bringing the matter before the borough assembly in May to get the service area question on the October ballot. Then, as Navarre said:
“The public gets to decide this. That’s how this works.”
Citizens want something. They think it will benefit the entire community, but they recognize there isn’t enough “free” money available on the magic financial tree of state and federal funds, grants and corporate donations to pay for it. So they volunteer to shoulder an extra tax burden to make it happen, and ask their neighbors to do the same.
In these days of bank bailouts, stock market collapses, housing market bubble bursts and retirement fund evaporations, coming on the heels of an era of pork barrel spending where following the money was more challenging than following an instruction book in Chinese, it’s refreshing to see an example of government straight out of civics 101.
People want something, they’re willing to pay for it so they ask their government to help provide it.
The group pursuing the sports dome, led by former borough mayor Mike Navarre, Kathy Gensel and Dale Sandahl, and supported by a who’s who cast of community leaders, is going about this in the best way possible. They want to establish a service area that would increase property taxes by a half mill to pay for the dome.
They’re forming a realistic estimate of the costs and scope of the project and are open about it with the community. They’re not telling people, “We’ll get grants, and the Legislature will come through and surely BP will be good for a million or so,” and adding (in fine print), “We’ll stick taxpayers with the rest of the bill.”
They’re not even attempting to convince people that the dome will pay for itself in user fees. It’s a good thing, because after the Soldotna Sports Center and Kenai Multipurpose Facility, citizens know recreation facilities tend to become black holes for public money. Instead, they’re telling people the truth: We’ll be paying a certain amount every year to operate this facility, and that’s OK. It’s not meant to make money, it’s a quality-of-life enhancement we’re willing to support.”
They do hope to get grants, legislative and donor funding, but they’re not even factoring that into the cost structure they’re presenting to the public. They’re telling people, “If we get this money, great, but if not, this is what it will cost to have this facility. We think it’s worth the cost, for the good of our kids and the entire community. We hope you think so, too.”
Whether people agree or not that the dome is worth an extra $50 a year on $100,000 of assessed property value, they can’t fault the process or allege that government’s trying to sneak something by them.
The dome group is holding a series of organizational meetings, where everyone is invited to come get information and ask questions. They’re talking to potential user groups and gaining their support. And they’re planning on bringing the matter before the borough assembly in May to get the service area question on the October ballot. Then, as Navarre said:
“The public gets to decide this. That’s how this works.”
Guest column: From Alaska, with love of money
If Alaska’s two most powerful women politicians were to chat, what might the conversation be? The following is one satirist’s take on a phone call from Gov. Sarah Palin to Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
“Hello?”
“Hi, Lisa. It’s me.”
“Umm … Sarah? What do you want?”
“Oh, nothing, really. I was just wondering what you were going to wear to the inauguration balls.”
“I don’t know. I haven’t decided. Maybe a conservative business suit.”
“How conservative?”
“Look, I’ve got a house full of PAC men here and I really can’t talk right now.”
“Want me to call back?”
“Sure. How about in about two years.”
“Well, I didn’t want us both to wear the same outfit. You know, so that we don’t clash with each other.”
“Um hmm. I suppose you don’t want me to wear red.”
“You got it, sister. That’s my color. After all, I earned it.”
“You betcha.”
“And that’s my line. Don’t you go appropriating it.”
“Look, I’ve really gotta go. I have to mingle with my guests.”
“OK. Umm, speaking of appropriations … .”
“Yeah?”
“Have you talked to the Begster about keeping the congressional fiduciary pipeline open back up here to the Great Land?”
“As a matter of fact, yes. The special projects spigot is still in the ‘on’ position. If it’s any of your business.”
“Sorry. It’s just that I feel so … so … isolated up here.”
“Well, I’m sure that you’ll be staying busy hiring and firing, and ironing the blue and gold bunting for all the statehood celebrations.”
“What celebrations?”
“Come on, sweetie. Alaska’s 50th anniversary of statehood.”
“Geez, that’s right.”
“Don’t tell me you forgot. Too busy with political beauty pageants?”
“Gimme a break, Miss Nepotism of 2002.”
“Stop with the name-calling, dearie. It has become so pre-election.”
“Speaking of elections …”
“Don’t even go there.”
“You know, if I didn’t know better, I’d think that you were actually not going to step aside for the good of the party in 2010.”
“I have no intention of stepping down. Not for you, not for — well, not for you.”
“The pollsters are already giving me a 10-point lead, sister.”
“Hmmph. Don’t forget about the restraining order that I have against you.”
“What restraining order?”
“The one that says you are to keep at least 25,000 votes away from me. At all times.”
“Oh, that. Yeah, I heard about that. But I fired the guy who was gonna serve it on me. How do you like them apples?”
“It is those apples, missy. Get a life. Or at least better grammar.”
“You leave my family outta this.”
“I’m hanging up now.”
“Okay, bye.”
“Bye … umm, Sarah?”
“Huh?”
“Are you really going to come be down here in D.C. in January?”
“Yep. You betcha. I’ll just be unobtrusively hanging around on the outer fringes of power.”
“Right. In your bright red dress with that rhinestone tiara, I suppose.”
“So? What’s wrong with that? I’m sure nobody will even notice me.”
“Sarah?”
“Yeah?”
“You are going to return to Alaska afterwards, right?”
“Golly, I suppose so. Eventually.”
“Okay. [sigh] A hundred million.”
“For openers?”
“Yeah.”
“And you’ll come up in July to cut the ribbon for the groundbreaking of my future gubernatorial libary?”
“It’s ‘lie-brer-ee’.”
“Okay, library.”
“Oh, all right. Say good night, Sarah.”
“Good night, Sarah.”
Click!
Bill Gronvold is a freelance writer who lives in Kenai and Florida.
“Hello?”
“Hi, Lisa. It’s me.”
“Umm … Sarah? What do you want?”
“Oh, nothing, really. I was just wondering what you were going to wear to the inauguration balls.”
“I don’t know. I haven’t decided. Maybe a conservative business suit.”
“How conservative?”
“Look, I’ve got a house full of PAC men here and I really can’t talk right now.”
“Want me to call back?”
“Sure. How about in about two years.”
“Well, I didn’t want us both to wear the same outfit. You know, so that we don’t clash with each other.”
“Um hmm. I suppose you don’t want me to wear red.”
“You got it, sister. That’s my color. After all, I earned it.”
“You betcha.”
“And that’s my line. Don’t you go appropriating it.”
“Look, I’ve really gotta go. I have to mingle with my guests.”
“OK. Umm, speaking of appropriations … .”
“Yeah?”
“Have you talked to the Begster about keeping the congressional fiduciary pipeline open back up here to the Great Land?”
“As a matter of fact, yes. The special projects spigot is still in the ‘on’ position. If it’s any of your business.”
“Sorry. It’s just that I feel so … so … isolated up here.”
“Well, I’m sure that you’ll be staying busy hiring and firing, and ironing the blue and gold bunting for all the statehood celebrations.”
“What celebrations?”
“Come on, sweetie. Alaska’s 50th anniversary of statehood.”
“Geez, that’s right.”
“Don’t tell me you forgot. Too busy with political beauty pageants?”
“Gimme a break, Miss Nepotism of 2002.”
“Stop with the name-calling, dearie. It has become so pre-election.”
“Speaking of elections …”
“Don’t even go there.”
“You know, if I didn’t know better, I’d think that you were actually not going to step aside for the good of the party in 2010.”
“I have no intention of stepping down. Not for you, not for — well, not for you.”
“The pollsters are already giving me a 10-point lead, sister.”
“Hmmph. Don’t forget about the restraining order that I have against you.”
“What restraining order?”
“The one that says you are to keep at least 25,000 votes away from me. At all times.”
“Oh, that. Yeah, I heard about that. But I fired the guy who was gonna serve it on me. How do you like them apples?”
“It is those apples, missy. Get a life. Or at least better grammar.”
“You leave my family outta this.”
“I’m hanging up now.”
“Okay, bye.”
“Bye … umm, Sarah?”
“Huh?”
“Are you really going to come be down here in D.C. in January?”
“Yep. You betcha. I’ll just be unobtrusively hanging around on the outer fringes of power.”
“Right. In your bright red dress with that rhinestone tiara, I suppose.”
“So? What’s wrong with that? I’m sure nobody will even notice me.”
“Sarah?”
“Yeah?”
“You are going to return to Alaska afterwards, right?”
“Golly, I suppose so. Eventually.”
“Okay. [sigh] A hundred million.”
“For openers?”
“Yeah.”
“And you’ll come up in July to cut the ribbon for the groundbreaking of my future gubernatorial libary?”
“It’s ‘lie-brer-ee’.”
“Okay, library.”
“Oh, all right. Say good night, Sarah.”
“Good night, Sarah.”
Click!
Bill Gronvold is a freelance writer who lives in Kenai and Florida.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Column: Shouldering a burden to lighten the load
Debbie Clonan is funny. That’s the first thing I noticed about her.
She’s witty and quick, observant and animated. If she’s got an opinion — and she usually does — she voices it; if something strikes her as funny — which is most of the time — she shares it.
That’s not to say she’s lacking in social graces — far from it. You don’t end up with a husband as wonderful or teenagers as pleasant and friendly as hers are without displaying those qualities yourself.
But she isn’t one to hold her tongue. That’s what impressed me about her.
She’s all personality, and she lays it out there for anyone to see. If something touches her, she expresses it, if something impresses her, she praises it, and if something ticks her off, you know it.
And cancer most definitely ticks her off.
“It sucks rocks,” she once said about cancer in an interview about the importance of getting mammograms.
Debbie has been through all of it — tests, surgery, radiation and chemo, drugs to combat the cancer and drugs to combat the side effects from the drugs to combat the cancer. She’s got stories that would make your toenails curl, turn black and fall off.
She was diagnosed with stage three breast cancer in December 2005, from her very first mammogram at age 41. Her tumor had soft edges, so it wasn’t detectable by touch. Her family doesn’t have a strong history of breast cancer. There was no good reason to think she may have had cancer. But cancer doesn’t listen to reason.
That’s why it’s so vital to get tested. Even if you don’t think you have it. Even if you statistically shouldn’t have it. Especially if you’re terrified you have it.
“I recommend that everybody get tested,” she said. “If you think something is weird, don’t give up until you have a real, determined answer. You know your own body. If you feel funny, don’t let them blow you off because you’re in your 30s or don’t have a family history of cancer. Get tested.”
This is a woman who speaks her mind, stands up, puts her foot down, does what she thinks is right and isn’t anybody’s doormat. And suddenly, her life wasn’t her own anymore. It was dominated by test results, treatments, medication, side effects and statistics. She went from taking care of her husband, kids, pets, parents and pantheon of friends to needing care herself.
Debbie’s response was to open her arms to cancer. Not to accept it, or “make peace with it,” or in any way condone that she had to be afflicted by it. More like to embrace it head on, so she could get a good grip around its neck and beat the livin’ snot out of it.
The amount of research she’s done would put a med student to shame. She’s been through every recommended treatment and course of medication, and soldiered through all the nasty side effects that come from them. Through it all she’s kept up her mission to be the “mammogram police,” encouraging everyone to get tested, and to help others make it through a cancer diagnosis. That’s what I most respect about her.
Even when Deb was sick, she’d call to see how my mom was doing when she was in treatment, or to ask if there was anything she could do to help another friend whose mom had cancer. She had “Stupid cancer!” buttons made up, and has helped make the Kenai Peninsula Relay for Life event the top fundraiser in the state.
Part of her support comes through humor, helping people laugh at a situation they don’t otherwise know how to deal with. Among her many helpful tips: Don’t tell someone with cancer, especially undergoing chemo, that they look “great.”
“What the hell did I look like before?” she said.
Or if you’re going to express your love and support through food, try to be creative.
“Don’t bring lasagna, because everyone brings lasagna.”
Debbie is about much more than cancer. She’s an outdoorsy girl, having grown up in Sterling with a horse field on the family’s property. She’s a talented writer who can project her voice as loud and clear on paper as well as she can in person.
She used to write the Sterling column for the Peninsula Clarion’s Neighbors section. She often used the venue as a platform to support kids in the community, especially being a mom, herself, and a library aide at Sterling Elementary School. She’d interview kids, talk about interesting things going on in the school, publicize 4-H projects and find myriad other ways to point out good things about the area’s youth.
I saw Deb on Friday. She wasn’t up for much conversation, but what she did say spoke volumes about her and what she values most in life. She talked about her girls, how they were having an orchestra concert that night, and how they did such a good job decorating the house for Christmas. She talked about her husband, how he was going to put the finishing touches — including a stained glass star she made herself — on the 17-foot tree when he got home from work. Her parents. Her pets. Kids in general, and how there needs to be more for them to do in the community.
That’s a woman with her priorities straight. That’s a woman who shoulders what “sucks” in life in order to lighten the load of others carrying the same burden.
That’s what I’ll always remember about her.
Merry Christmas, Deb.
Jenny Neyman is the editor/publisher of the Redoubt Reporter.
She’s witty and quick, observant and animated. If she’s got an opinion — and she usually does — she voices it; if something strikes her as funny — which is most of the time — she shares it.
That’s not to say she’s lacking in social graces — far from it. You don’t end up with a husband as wonderful or teenagers as pleasant and friendly as hers are without displaying those qualities yourself.
But she isn’t one to hold her tongue. That’s what impressed me about her.
She’s all personality, and she lays it out there for anyone to see. If something touches her, she expresses it, if something impresses her, she praises it, and if something ticks her off, you know it.
And cancer most definitely ticks her off.
“It sucks rocks,” she once said about cancer in an interview about the importance of getting mammograms.
Debbie has been through all of it — tests, surgery, radiation and chemo, drugs to combat the cancer and drugs to combat the side effects from the drugs to combat the cancer. She’s got stories that would make your toenails curl, turn black and fall off.
She was diagnosed with stage three breast cancer in December 2005, from her very first mammogram at age 41. Her tumor had soft edges, so it wasn’t detectable by touch. Her family doesn’t have a strong history of breast cancer. There was no good reason to think she may have had cancer. But cancer doesn’t listen to reason.
That’s why it’s so vital to get tested. Even if you don’t think you have it. Even if you statistically shouldn’t have it. Especially if you’re terrified you have it.
“I recommend that everybody get tested,” she said. “If you think something is weird, don’t give up until you have a real, determined answer. You know your own body. If you feel funny, don’t let them blow you off because you’re in your 30s or don’t have a family history of cancer. Get tested.”
This is a woman who speaks her mind, stands up, puts her foot down, does what she thinks is right and isn’t anybody’s doormat. And suddenly, her life wasn’t her own anymore. It was dominated by test results, treatments, medication, side effects and statistics. She went from taking care of her husband, kids, pets, parents and pantheon of friends to needing care herself.
Debbie’s response was to open her arms to cancer. Not to accept it, or “make peace with it,” or in any way condone that she had to be afflicted by it. More like to embrace it head on, so she could get a good grip around its neck and beat the livin’ snot out of it.
The amount of research she’s done would put a med student to shame. She’s been through every recommended treatment and course of medication, and soldiered through all the nasty side effects that come from them. Through it all she’s kept up her mission to be the “mammogram police,” encouraging everyone to get tested, and to help others make it through a cancer diagnosis. That’s what I most respect about her.
Even when Deb was sick, she’d call to see how my mom was doing when she was in treatment, or to ask if there was anything she could do to help another friend whose mom had cancer. She had “Stupid cancer!” buttons made up, and has helped make the Kenai Peninsula Relay for Life event the top fundraiser in the state.
Part of her support comes through humor, helping people laugh at a situation they don’t otherwise know how to deal with. Among her many helpful tips: Don’t tell someone with cancer, especially undergoing chemo, that they look “great.”
“What the hell did I look like before?” she said.
Or if you’re going to express your love and support through food, try to be creative.
“Don’t bring lasagna, because everyone brings lasagna.”
Debbie is about much more than cancer. She’s an outdoorsy girl, having grown up in Sterling with a horse field on the family’s property. She’s a talented writer who can project her voice as loud and clear on paper as well as she can in person.
She used to write the Sterling column for the Peninsula Clarion’s Neighbors section. She often used the venue as a platform to support kids in the community, especially being a mom, herself, and a library aide at Sterling Elementary School. She’d interview kids, talk about interesting things going on in the school, publicize 4-H projects and find myriad other ways to point out good things about the area’s youth.
I saw Deb on Friday. She wasn’t up for much conversation, but what she did say spoke volumes about her and what she values most in life. She talked about her girls, how they were having an orchestra concert that night, and how they did such a good job decorating the house for Christmas. She talked about her husband, how he was going to put the finishing touches — including a stained glass star she made herself — on the 17-foot tree when he got home from work. Her parents. Her pets. Kids in general, and how there needs to be more for them to do in the community.
That’s a woman with her priorities straight. That’s a woman who shoulders what “sucks” in life in order to lighten the load of others carrying the same burden.
That’s what I’ll always remember about her.
Merry Christmas, Deb.
Jenny Neyman is the editor/publisher of the Redoubt Reporter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
