On Dillingham trip, Murkowski gathers ideas on permanent protections for Bristol Bay

Jun 7, 2021

Murkowski said the best way to ensure long-term protections is for Congress to pass a law. Earlier this year, regional and statewide groups opposed to Pebble put forward several options for protecting the area.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski. July 18, 2017.
Credit Liz Ruskin/Alaska Public Media

U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski visited Dillingham last week.

She said the primary reason for her visit was to gather ideas for permanent protections against developments like the proposed Pebble Mine.

Murkowski used to chair the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and has historically supported resource development. For years, she declined to support or oppose Pebble, saying it was important to wait for the federal permitting process to play out.

As the Army Corps of Engineers neared its final permit decision last year, and undercover tapes emerged of Pebble leaders doubting she’d take a stand against the project, Murkowski did just that.

In Dillingham, Murkowski met with people from the commercial, subsistence and recreational fisheries. She also held a closed meeting with select community leaders at the Dillingham Middle/High School.

“This is kind of the beginning of stakeholder engagements and meetings, and we will be continuing this throughout the process,” she said in an interview with KDLG on Friday.

Murkowski said the best way to ensure long-term protections is for Congress to pass a law. In the past, groups that opposed Pebble have pushed for a preemptive veto from the Environmental Protection Agency.

“That clearly is a tool that provides for a level of protection, but it doesn’t necessarily ensure that any entity coming beyond the Pebble proposal would be prohibited from mining activity. So if that’s what’s being sought, it’s legislation,” she said.

Earlier this year, regional and statewide groups opposed to Pebble put forward several options for protecting the area. One was to create a National Fisheries Area, which would bypass the need for a state designation.

Murkowski said possibilities include the federal government obtaining state land. That would give the feds the authority to protect that land from any future development.

“There have been discussions about whether it’s exchanges or ways that you can ensure that the mineral rights that currently exist with the state are exchanged, are conveyed," she said. "So these are the types of things that we are exploring at this point in time.”

KDLG will air a full interview with Murkowski later this week.

Contact the author at izzy@kdlg.org or 907-842-2200.