MORE OBSERVATIONS FROM AUGUSTA

Legislative Blog # 2
For people new to these Observations: You might want to scroll down to Legislative Blog # 1, and read up. 

First week here my biggest challenge was finding my way around Augusta streets. This week a bigger challenge is finding my way around the legislative process in order to decide which sessions I want to attend in keeping with my major areas of interest: $ in Politics, Environment, Health Care, and Education.

Wednesday morning I wanted to attend Public Hearings on the Biomass Bond bills. It took more time than I planned to find parking as I passed by the parking garage before I knew it was there. I had to navigate my way around other parking areas and back to the garage. Then my printout didn’t tell me which committee was holding the hearing, and I assumed it was Energy and Natural Resources. So, going into the State House where my print-out told me I needed to be, I asked the attendant at the Check In if I was in the right place for the ENR hearings on the biomass issues in room 228 of the State House. He sent me to the scheduling office where I repeated my request. She said the ENR committee was meeting in the Cross Building right across the way. I went there and repeated my request at their information desk. She said ENR was meeting in Room 216. There I found myself listening to the tail end of a public hearing on Diversion of RGGI Funding. I had no idea what RGGI was. 

By then, I figured out I must be in the wrong committee, it was nearing 11:00, and I was frustrated and hungry, so I came back to my temporary home, ate lunch, and spent the rest of my computer time on Wednesday researching the Biomass Bond bills and trying to put together a schedule for Thursday.  So Wednesday was a loss in terms of observing the legislature at work. But, I keep telling myself, I get all these brain-health benefits from responding to such challenges.   

The two Biomass Bond bills propose funding for biomass infrastructure and low interest loans for capital investments.  An article in the Portland Press Herald by Scott Thistle  reports that sponsors agreed Wednesday to merge the two bills. Senator Troy Jackson, sponsor of the bill to provide low interest loans said, “By capitalizing on biomass energy, we have the ability to be a world leader in this industry . . . . The potential for developing new markets, innovating the industry, growing the economy and creating jobs is too great to pass up.” Governor LePage opposes the effort, calling it “corporate welfare at the worst, it can’t get any worse than that because they are coming in and they are telling you up front the only way they can survive is by you giving them a subsidy.”

In keeping with my core interests, I need to do much more research on environmental impacts from biomass, but from what I understand now, “Use of wood as a replacement for fossil fuels has thepotential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to climate change mitigation.” 

However, the criticism about corporate welfare is troubling. According to a Portland Press article referring to an earlier proposal, taxpayer funded subsidies are proposed “to support biomass plants that are owned by a multinational private investment firm worth an estimated $33 billion and another publicly traded market capital company that reported $1.6 billion in revenue last year."   So this issue, too, raises the specter of the power and influence of big corporate money to affect our politics-- like the one I reviewed briefly in my Legislative Blog # 1 below about a proposal to give another multi-million dollar corporate subsidy to General Dynamics, owner of Bath Iron Works.  

And so it goes—always many complications in the legislative business of solving problems. I am a long way from being ready to testify on these issues.

As complicated as my effort is in scheduling my own time here and researching to prepare, I am gaining a new appreciation for the complex process the legislature faces in getting its work done on several hundred bills between now and April: hold public hearings and work sessions in committee to debate each bill; make committee decisions—ought to pass or ought not to pass; debate again when the bill comes before the full House and the full Senate; reconcile any differences between House and Senate. I suspect I have hardly scratched the surface of that process in this brief description.

Thursday was much better for me: parking and finding the right room in the right building in less than 15 minutes, hearing the issues I wanted to hear debated in the Health and Human Services Committee, and realizing I need to do more research to fully prepare for observations and writing about the issues. 

OBSERVATIONS FROM AUGUSTA

Legislative Blog # 1

I moved to Augusta for this Maine legislative session to pay more attention to issues I care about, to be close enough to testify frequently, and blog about my observations at least once a week. Full disclosure: I am a registered Democrat, a fiscal conservative, a liberal for social justice, a capitalist on micro-economics, and a socialist on macro-economics. I am sure I hold various other values I can’t think of at the moment that might mean I ought to register as a political independent. But “habit is habit and not to be thrown out the window but coaxed down the stairs one step at a time” (Mark Twain, I think). Besides, this life is so full of complications and challenges that I must fly by the seat of my pants with all my ideals. Hopefully, you will discover along with me and along the way what I mean by this introduction to my current project(s).

I moved in here Monday, New Year’s Day 2018, an appropriate day to begin one more time to change my life. At least for the next several months. Here is a room in a house with 5 other tenants and common kitchen, dining room, and living room with a TV which I vowed not to watch while here, and already failed at that by watching PBS News Hour every night. So preoccupied since Monday with setting up computer equipment and settling in (which involved way too many hours of finding my way and shopping for things I forgot or that don’t work, like my GPS car charger)  I missed an important public hearing yesterday on a bill attempting to prevent the gathering of petition signatures  at the polls. 

So now, to the meat of observed political matters for this week: 2 issues related to the influence of money in politics.

On Wednesday, January 3^rd a public hearing was held on the effort to restrict the right of voters to petition the government. I did not hear about this hearing until after 1:00 PM, the time it was supposed to start. It seems many if not most of our state legislators, both Democrats and Republicans as well as our Secretary of State are bothered and frustrated by the referendum process that includes the gathering of signatures at the polls to get a referendum on the ballot. SOS Matt Dunlap has proposed a bill LD 1726  that includes a provision to ban signature gathering at the polls. He says the ban is not intended to restrict voter rights, but, he says “Sometimes signature gatherers are very, very aggressive [. . .] They take things right to the very edge and it causes issues [. . . .] this is a response to complaints we get from townclerks and voters themselves who complain to the heavens.” 

Anna Kelly from the League of Women Voters of Maine says eliminating the ability to gather signatures at the polls would “give an advantage to groups that have a lot of money [ . . . ] funded usually from big donors out of state,” 

A brief anecdote to further illustrate how this issue relates to money in politics: I have gathered signatures for referendum petitions at the polls, most recently for Ranked Choice Voting in the November election. I sat beside one other signature gatherer for a different cause who was being paid $180 for the day to gather 300 signatures. In a 12-hour day, he gathered something over 250 signatures by the time I left. I do not know what was to happen if he didn’t complete his goal. Perhaps he would have to gather the remaining signatures elsewhere to get paid. I hear about some gatherers being paid as much as $25.00 per signature for a well-financed campaign. At 300 signatures that gatherer would earn $750. In contrast, the gatherer paid $180 per day would have only earned a bit less than $1.66 per signature for the same number of signatures. At the polls both gatherers would have equal access to voters. Being denied that access, which gatherer do you think will have the best success in gathering signatures?

I do not and will not get paid for gathering signatures. I oppose getting paid for gathering signatures, for causes I support as well as for those I oppose. I do not fault paid signature gatherers. Knowing how onerous the job is, I believe it to be worth $25 per signature, but I do fault the gross wage inequality. I do fault the  elected officials who pay attention to donors more than voters when they legislate. I do fault the power of money.

I might have more sympathy with the complainers at the polls and with Dunlap’s bill if it were not for the consequences of allowing the power of money to control our Democracy. Restricting the will of the voters may not be intended, but restriction will be the conseqence. The increasing influence of money in politics is a major cause of the increasing disconnect between elected officials and the voters they represent.

Instead of restricting voters’ access to each other and to their government, we should look harder for a solution that eliminates the power of money in politics, the root cause of so many of our problems.

Next week, I hope to have more news of a proposal to give another multi-million dollar corporate subsidy to General Dynamics (owner of Bath Iron Works). According to Bruce Gagnon from Global Network, the bill sponsored by Rep. Jennifer DeChant (Dem-Bath) and Sen. Eloise Vitelli (Dem-Arrowsic) “to give GD $60 million over the next 20 years is still not written.  It appears DeChant continues to work with GD’s lawyers and lobbyists to complete the bill for Taxation Committee hearings that would be on January 22.”   

To be continued.

BOOK PRESENTATION

OPPRESSION FOR THE HEAVEN OF IT

by Moore Bowen

pseudonym for Alan Mountain & Alice Bolstridge

Chance & Choice: Book Launch

No Metal Mining in Maine

The metal mining bill, LD 820, that was passed by the Maine Legislature is not environmentally protective. It allows contamination of ground water within 100 feet of the "mining area." It allows an open pit of up to 3 acres which is nearly half the size of the disastrous Callahan mine. There is no limit in the bill on the number of shafts or open pits of up to 3 acres, so there could conceivably be many mining areas. There is no satisfactory explanation of how contaminated ground water could be prevented from polluting surrounding waters. 

Celebrants of the passage of the bill, are touting the virtues of "enough up-front money from the mining company to cover a worst-case mining disaster." The money up front will be determined by State environmental agencies (BEP or DEP) which serve at the whim of political powers in office and have shown themselves incapable of writing truly protective regulations for the last 5 years. It drives me to despair remembering that there has never been enough money to repair the damage of a worst-case mining disaster, and that is likely to happen if Bald Mountain is mined. 

Bald mountain is one of the most toxic sites in the U. S., and Maine is one of the wettest states which makes it especially vulnerable to uncontrollable leaching of toxic substances. Catastrophic contamination of the Fish River Chain downstream from a mine at Bald Mountain is to be expected as there are no examples anywhere of metal mining, neither open pit nor shaft, neither traditional nor modern, that does not contaminate surrounding waters. 

Proponents of the bill claim it is the most protective in the United States, and I have no reason to doubt their word, but it is still not protective enough with these problems still remaining. With the current state of technology, a ban on metal mining in Maine is the only legislation that will be protective enough. The issue is not settled. We have not heard the last of it.

Show me the Evidence

The Maine Legislative Committee on Environment and Natural Resources voted “Ought to pass” on LD  820, the bill supported by the environmental community that supposedly bans open-pit mining and wet-waste management but will allow contamination of ground water in restricted areas of underground or “shaft” mining. Concerned that any allowance of contaminated ground water cannot be contained to the mining area, I asked for evidence of such a mine successfully containing pollution from surrounding waters. I was told the Green Creeks Mine in Alaska is such a mine.

Researching this mine, I find great causes for alarm and no evidence that underground mines can adequately protect the environment or human health.   In one article, Shoren Brown writes, “the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation released a study showing the Greens Creek mine is polluting Admiralty Island National Monument with acid mine drainage.” “Greens Creek has a long history of polluting Alaska's waters. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Greens Creek is Alaska's second biggest toxic polluter. It released 59 million pounds of toxic chemicals in 2000.”  

Another article by Haines Watch says, “Greens Creek Mine has had hundreds of mining violations. Now, terribly, we know that the mine has greatly polluted Hawk Inlet. Local native communities are distraught over the possibility of a complete loss of subsistence in their ocean area. . . . These mines destroy and ruin a way of life that has gone on for thousands of years. Nothing is more “Restrictive” then destroying people’s food sources. Tourism, Commercial Fishing, Sub-fishing, and our native communities are all at risk.” 

With any metal mining in Maine’s wet climate, local Maine resources of sports, fishing, and hunting as well as human health are at great risk. An article from the National Institutes ofHealth says, "Because of their high degree of toxicity, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury [all elements found at toxic levels at Bald Mountain] rank among the priority metals that are of public health significance. These metallic elements are considered systemic toxicants that are known to induce multiple organ damage, even at lower levels of exposure. They are also classified as human carcinogens (known or probable) according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer." 

I have repeatedly asked for evidence that any metal mining in Maine’s wet climate can be environmentally safe. No one—not the geologists I have asked, not the legislators, not the environmentalist supporters of LD 820—have been able or willing to provide such evidence.

I wrote to all the Maine legislators, explaining the risks and asking them to please vote against LD 820 and support a ban on any metal mining in Maine, but this week the Maine Senate voted 34-0 to pass the bill. If you are reading this and live in Maine, please contact your House member today and tell him or her to vote NO on the bill and to support a ban on Metal mining in Maine.

Published The Star Herald, May 17, 2017

NO EVIDENCE FOR SAFETY OF OPEN-PIT MINING

Aroostook folks testifying at Maine legislative hearing
in opposition to metal mining. 

Since 2012, I have spent months researching metal mining each time I prepare to testify at legislative hearings, 4 times total.

I know from all this research and from listening to overwhelming numbers of people testifying in opposition to weak mining rules that Bald Mountain is among the most toxic sites in the United States. I heard stories about workers on the original exploration of the site in the 1970s becoming sick just from the dust of the drilling holes. One broke out in a rash so severe he had to be taken to the emergency room for treatment.  I have heard testimony at legislative hearings from Medical Doctors about serious medical effects of open pit mining, effects which sound deadly to me. I heard testimony from environmental scientists about the risks of pollution from arsenic, sulphuric acid, and other toxic chemicals

According to Lance Tapley in ThePhoenix, the geologist who discovered and explored the Bald Mountain site, John. S. Cummings, found “arsenic levels in the rock up to . . . 2.9 million times the level the federal Environmental Protection Agency considers safe for drinking water. . . . In one of his many writings about the mountain, [Cummings] describes [the site] as an enormous, naturally occurring ‘toxic dump.’” In a letter to John Martin in 2012, Cummings  said “a large open-pit [mine] . . . is a prescription for a debacle.”

A 2014 industry article that analyzes risks to be managed to increase profitability says, “The metal mining industry is the largest toxic polluter in the U.S.” In addition to water pollution, it is “a significant contributor of [Greenhouse Gas Emissions] and other “Hazardous Air Pollutants” that “have more localized (but significant) human health and environmental impacts.” This pro-mining article talks about managing the risks. It makes no claims about preventing toxic effects.

A report from Friends of the Cloquet Valley State Forest in Minnesota with a climate similar to Maine’s concludes about the promise of economic benefits, “Metal mining earnings and jobs tend to be very volatile, leading to community instability and long-term decline. These are real economic costs associated with metal mining. The metal mining industry is prone to both ‘booms’ and ‘busts’ as well as to a long-term decline in the labor required to produce any given volume of metal ore.”

I looked but couldn’t find any convincing evidence in research or testimony since 2012 that pollution of ground water and toxic wastes can be safely contained in perpetuity at sites like Bald Mountain.

For all these reasons, I can only support a ban on open-pit metal mining or on any underground mine that poses unacceptable risks to water, air, soil, human health, and sustainable socio-economic health of communities. Mining at the Bald Mountain site and other toxic sites in Maine must never be allowed unless or until trustworthy evidence exists that it will be done without risk of catastrophic damage. That evidence does not exist at this time. 

Published The Star Herald, March 29, 2017