Massive overreach is significantly outside of established process and sets dangerous precedent
Anchorage, AK — The Pebble Partnership submitted lengthy comments objecting to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) preemptive veto of the Pebble Project and called upon the agency to withdraw its action and refrain from further action against the project, thus allowing the permit process undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to conclude. PLP CEO John Shively had the following statement about the comments submitted by the company:
“The comments we filed clearly show there is absolutely no justification for the EPA’s actions against the Pebble Project. The EPA’s proposed veto of Pebble is legally, environmentally and technically unsupported. The EPA action is premature and it flies in the face of decades of regulatory precedent for fair and due process for development projects in Alaska and the nation.
“The EPA’s actions are politically motivated, and in our comments today we spell out just how indefensible this veto process has become. The EPA has made wildly speculative claims about possible adverse impacts from Pebble’s development that are not supported by any defensible data and are in direct contradiction with the facts demonstrated in the USACE’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Pebble Project. The FEIS clearly states that Pebble can be developed without harm to the Bristol Bay fishery. Regulations and court precedent specify EPA must establish that development will have demonstrable adverse impacts before it can initiate a veto, and the EPA did not do this. Simply put, EPA’s speculation about impacts is not the same as demonstrating impacts will occur.
“Congress did not give the EPA broad authority to act as it has in the Pebble case. The 404 veto was intended to be narrowly defined and for specific areas. In this case, the EPA has preemptively vetoed 309 square miles (nearly 200,000 acres) of state of Alaska land, an area 66 times larger than any previous 404 veto. In fact, this site prohibition is 23 times larger than the entire mine site footprint. This is clearly a massive regulatory overreach by the EPA and well outside what Congress intended for the agency when it passed the Clean Water Act.
“Perhaps the most egregious aspect of this entire process is the EPA’s blatant dismissal of the significant economic benefits this project could have for the region and for the state without explanation or justification. The EPA gives short shrift to what hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs could mean for the communities around Iliamna Lake. I know from personal experience what jobs mean for Alaska’s smaller, rural communities and for the Alaska Natives who live there. The Final EIS clearly demonstrates the dramatic impact responsible Pebble development could have for these communities. The benefits are indisputable.
“Should the EPA finalize its Pebble veto, there are numerous violations of rights, agreements and laws that profoundly affect the future of Alaska, and these will likely be contested in court. EPA has blatantly ignored the state of Alaska, which is the landowner that specifically selected the Pebble area for its mineral potential. If the EPA finalizes its veto and precludes any development on 309 square miles of Alaska land, it would be violating Alaska’s Statehood Compact and the ‘no-more’ clause of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which requires congressional approval of any additional park land in Alaska. The EPA would also be violating the U.S. Constitution by taking away the State and the project’s legally protected property interests in the mineral rights underlying the land, without any just compensation.
“EPA gives little to no consideration to the critical role copper will play in our nation’s transition to more renewable sources of power. There are multiple studies and reports that point to a looming supply gap for copper in the decades ahead. Pebble could be a critical source for the copper the nation needs to make this transition, or the U.S. will face the reality of being dependent upon China for the copper and other minerals necessary for green energy.
“Thus, for numerous legal, environmental, technical and economic reasons, the EPA should withdraw its actions against Pebble and let the established permitting and review process function as designed. Our team has submitted a thorough and detailed set of comments against the EPA’s preemptive veto of Pebble and I encourage all project stakeholders to read them.”
A copy of PLP’s comments to the EPA can be found here.