Thanks for the memories--The Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education sent a card addressed: To the Parents of Kim Elton. The card, which landed in my office, reminded my parents about the higher education and financial aid opportunities available to their teen and encouraged my folks to sit down and plan with their teen (me) for "a successful future." Fertile ground there--my folks still are hoping for a successful future for me.

Sorry Charlie--"This flight is not available for tracking per request of the owner/operator." That's the message that pops up from flightaware.com when any enterprising Alaskan goes to the Internet site to track the flight history of the state's new jet. I guess a narrow reading of 'owner' could be the governor, who bought the jet over the objections of most every Alaskan, but I'd suggest a more reasonable definition--the jet was purchased with public dollars so the owner ought to be the public. Typically, anyone with an inquiry about the flight habits of a specific aircraft, armed with the tail number, can go to the web site for a flight history. My office wanted to check the flight history of the jet since the state's purchase and have been told by the Department of Public Safety that we probably could get the jet use information if we filed a public information request but it would take a week or 10 days to get it. If we wanted an update, they suggested, we'd have to file a new request. Well, the fall back was the website but apparently a bureaucrat got there first. Maybe if every Alaskan interested in that jet's use filed a weekly request with DPS Commissioner Bill Tandeske they'd realize that every Alaskan has the right to know when, where and how the jet is being used. Maybe not before the flight for security reasons, but certainly after the flight.

OK, I've gotta say this--One of the rules, rarely broken, for this newsletter is that the focus is on state, regional and local issues. But I've just returned from a vacation and part of my vacation included a tour of Washington, D.C. monuments, museums and, of course, the Capitol. Every thing pretty much comported with what I learned here, years ago, in school civics classes--when it came to the physical manifestations of our nation's capital. But there are jarring inconsistencies between civics and the new reality when it comes to governance. Back when I was in school, it would have been incredible to believe that four decades later we'd have a White House fiercely opposed to a ban on torture approved 90-9 by the U.S. Senate; that we'd have taxpayer dollars used to plant columns favorable to executive initiatives in the U.S. media; that we'd use taxpayer dollars to buy favorable coverage in Iraqi media; that we'd even consider "sneak and peak" policies to check up on reading habits of U.S. citizens; and that we'd have secret prisons to keep dangerous folks and deny access by the Red Cross and others to check on the conditions of those prisons. We did study these kinds of governance issues back in the cold war era but they were examples from the other super power.

Consider it done--When I returned from vacation there was a memo from the governor awaiting me. He had asked the DEC commissioner to review for accuracy a previous newsletter item I'd lifted from a Juneau Empire story that said 63 percent of the 13,754 metric tons of greenhouse gases emitted in Glacier Bay were from cruise ships. The commish, in a memo back to the governor said "these numbers appear correct" but noted the report had not been shared with the state. The commish also said, though he hadn't seen the federal report, that "cruise ship greenhouse gas emissions in Glacier Bay are not polluting the park or impacting the local climate." There, I've printed the additional conclusion from the DEC commish that the governor wanted me to print. The only other thing that probably should be iterated is the adage: "Think globally, act locally." Especially since the commish also noted in his response to the guv that "greenhouse gases are of concern on global climactic (sic) scale." Neither the Empire or I suggested the cruise ships be banned from the park--they'll just take their emissions with them elsewhere. A better conclusion from my remarks would be that the cruise ship companies take steps to reduce pollution. One company already has done it big time locally. That local example of significant pollution reduction is the focus, time, energy, and money invested to switch to electric shore power while tied to their dock downtown.

Phone: (907) 465-4947
Fax: (907) 465-2108
Mail: Sen. Elton, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Email:
Senator.Kim.Elton
Jesse.Kiehl
Paula.Cadiente
Web: http://elton.akdemocrats.org

     When I was a youngster, probably 8 or 9, I just knew I'd like my mom's macaroni and cheese dinners a whole lot more if she used Velveeta instead of cheddar as the pasta binder. As only a child that age can do, I wheedled, whined and implored for Velveeta.
     One day I came home from catching turtles with friends and mom was preparing dinner--macaroni and cheese. There was a box of Velveeta on the counter. I assumed my begging had worked and, even though I don't quite remember, I'm sure I expressed my appreciation for this significant culinary shift by doing what any good, dutiful child would do--planting a quick peck on the cheek or imparting a brief but gentle hug. At dinner, though, I was disappointed that the macaroni and cheese didn't seem to taste any better. When mom asked how I liked the macaroni, though, I told her dinner was so much better because I hated the thought that I'd been wrong about Velveeta.
     Then she told me she had used cheddar and the Velveeta never left the box. She just proved, she said, that the improved taste of Velveeta was all in my head.
     I learned a couple of lessons from my mom that evening. First, tell the truth even if the truth seems to conflict with the expected reality. Second, don't be tricked again.
     I tell this story because I feel like I'm being tricked again. I feel like the Alaska fishing community is being tricked again. 
     Last year, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) drafted regulations to allow mixing zones for pollutants in fish spawning and rearing habitat. I testified, along with many other Alaskans, against the proposed new regs at one of several public hearings. 
     Even though the public hearings for the regs were in the middle of the fish harvest season, enough concerned Alaskans found time to testify that the outcry against pollution in fish habitat areas forced the department to withdraw the proposed regs for "more work". Now DEC's fish habitat pollution regs are back. The new reg proposals are eerily reminiscent of my mom's Velveeta solution. DEC suggests they've changed the regs' ingredients but the taste sure is the same.
     Right now there is an outright Alaska ban on pollution in fish spawning habitat. The first set of regs from last year, later withdrawn, eviscerated that ban. This new iteration of regs still eviscerates the ban but does it less baldly. DEC kept the same cheese but sprinkled parsley on top so the macaroni dish looks better.
     The existing ban has served our salmon, other fish, and Alaskans well. An international group, the Marine Stewardship Council, has certified our commercial salmon fishery as sustainable and our management practices as protective. Alaskans tout that certification and our pure and pristine waters in markets that purchase our salmon. (That marketing slant is a fine counterpoint to farmed, industrial salmon and has been so successful that the Alaskan fish brand is being stolen by fishmongers outside the state who fraudulently attach the pristine Alaska cachet to fish from other, more polluted, areas of the globe.)
     The new DEC pollution in fish stream regs have parsley wiggle words like: "overall biological integrity"; or "objectionable deposits"; or acceptable "mitigation plans." But what do these phrases really mean and can we trust this administration's interpretation of the phrases?
     Remember, this administration already has defanged local coastal protections by gutting important elements of the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Act; they've cut habitat biologists and moved them from the Department of Fish and Game (with its biota conservation ethic) to the Department of Natural Resources (with its resource exploitation ethic); and they promoted and then signed legislation that mandates timber production be the highest and best use of state forests (ranking logging higher than fishing, tourism, subsistence, and recreation).
     The concerns I have about pollution in spawning and rearing zones are shared by many other Alaskans. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife folks, fish processors, the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association, the United Fishermen of Alaska, the Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association, and communities as diverse as Juneau and Kenai and the Kenai Borough and Port Graham and the Ketchikan Gateway Borough and the Lake and Peninsula Borough took a stand against pollution dilution in fish habitat areas the first time around. Their antipathy to the pollution regs the first time around caught the attention of the administration and may explain why this time around the only public hearing the department scheduled for the regs was in Anchorage.
     I testified and wrote last year, when the first iteration of these new regs was plopped in our laps, that the governor and his DEC appointees behave dangerously by pushing for pollutants in salmon spawning, incubation and rearing areas at a time when Alaska's salmon are finally finding some traction in tenuous world markets. With this second iteration of the regs, the administration tries to suggest the regs are okay because they've added some very imprecise language. 
     But the new recipe they have is just as bad as the old recipe. They haven't changed the cheese.

(DEC is accepting comments on the new regs until 5 p.m. December 19. You can send written comments to: Nancy Sonafrank, ADEC, 610 University Dr., Fairbanks, AK 99709 or to: Nancy_Sonafrank@dec.state.ak.us .)