By REP. KEVIN MCCABE
On the final day of the 2025 legislative session, House Speaker Bryce Edgmon introduced House Bill 233. Co-sponsored by Rep. Sara Hannan and Rep. Andy Josephson, this bill claims to protect the Bristol Bay watershed by banning metallic sulfide mining in the region.
But this is not about fish or water. It is about blocking Pebble Mine and other projects before President Donald Trump’s new administration can restore some sanity to federal permitting and get Alaska’s resource economy back on track.
HB 233 is a sneak attack. Dropped at the eleventh hour, it is timed just right to be forced through early next session before the public even has a chance to notice. This is not environmental protection; it is political gamesmanship. The goal is not clean water or thriving fish; the goal is to shut down mining before Alaskans can benefit from it.
We have seen this before. DC environmental groups parachute into Alaska to tell us what we can and cannot do with our land. They rally national headlines and fundraising campaigns, but they do not live in Naknek, Togiak, or Iliamna. They don’t pay Alaskans’ bills. They don’t raise kids in schools on the brink of collapse. And they certainly do not sit around wondering how to pay heating bills in February. Their concern is not our future; their concern is making money off of those they can convince of Alaskan’s attempts to destroy our own fish or environment.
With President Trump back in office, and with federal agencies once again turning toward energy independence and resource development, HB 233 is a desperate attempt to lock the gate before the lights come back on. This bill is not about salmon; it is about politics. It is a hedge against jobs, against tax revenue, and against local opportunity in rural Alaska where those things matter most.
The bill mentions a $2.2 billion commercial fishery. What it fails to say is that number is based on outdated 2018 data. Since then, Bristol Bay has suffered a 56 percent decline in harvest, and ex-vessel prices have cratered to as low as 65 cents per pound. The fish may be returning, but fewer independent fishermen remain to catch them, and most of the processing happens out of state. The direct return to Alaska’s General Fund has dropped to $15 to $20 million annually. That’s a fraction of what a single hard rock mine could deliver.
According to Northern Dynasty Minerals, the Pebble deposit holds $400 billion worth of copper, gold, and molybdenum. That is not speculation; it is a proven resource. It could provide $20 to $30 million per year in state tax revenue, create over a thousand high-paying jobs for Alaskans, and deliver real infrastructure improvements to a region that sorely needs them. And unlike the fishery, those benefits do not vanish with market volatility or processor consolidation.
Critics respond with horror stories of acid mine drainage and tailings disasters. But these are straw men, designed to scare not inform. Consider Red Dog Mine. Since 1989, it has operated successfully in a remote and sensitive part of Alaska. It has returned over $1.3 billion to the state and local entities. It treats its water, and the Wulik River still supports fish. Development and conservation are not mutually exclusive; we have already proven that in our own backyard. Alaskans do mining better, safer, and with more respect for the environment than anyone on the planet.
An example is the dry-stack tailings system designed to withstand a 1,000-year seismic event. That’s not public relations fluff; it’s backed by science and the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Bristol Bay is geologically stable. The risk is not zero, but it is reasonable and manageable. Still, mining opposition relies on emotion, citing foreign mining disasters or cherry-picked hypotheticals that do not reflect the facts on the ground or the rigorous permitting process we have here in Alaska.
Conversely, while HB 233 pretends to protect fish, it is silent on the single largest threat to our salmon: bottom trawling. While this bill would ban mines that have not even broken ground or disturbed a single fish, it ignores the factory trawlers scraping the ocean floor, killing coral, crushing habitat, and discarding hundreds of thousands of salmon as bycatch.
In 2023 alone, trawlers discarded more than 150,000 metric tons of bycatch, including an estimated 50,000 Chinook and 200,000 chum salmon. These are fish that should be returning to the rivers of Western Alaska, feeding families, supporting culture, and boosting local economies. Instead, they are wasted at sea, while politicians in Juneau attack a project that has not harmed a single fish. Does anyone else smell the hypocrisy?
And what about the economic claims? Groups like ASMI peddle the idea of a 122-to-1 return on investment from marketing Bristol Bay fish. But when you dig into the numbers, that return shrinks to more like 13 to 1. Their claimed $1.5 billion processing value lacks third-party review. If we are going to have a serious debate, let’s at least agree to use honest numbers. Are we really inflating the value of one resource just to justify locking away another?
Bristol Bay is of the utmost importance to Alaska. It always will be. But it is not untouchable, and it is not the only thing that matters. The fishery is inconsistent, fragile, and increasingly consolidated, with money and jobs shifted offshore and out of state. Mining, when done right, offers long-term, stable, regulated economic growth. And ironically, it is the mining industry, not the fishing industry, that seems more willing to submit to modern environmental safeguards.
HB 233 does not protect the environment; it protects special interests. It does not support Alaska’s future; it locks away our potential. If Bristol Bay Native leaders want to evaluate what responsible mining looks like, they should start by visiting Red Dog. If we want to save the fish, we should start by confronting the trawl fleet, not scapegoating a project that has followed the rules every step of the way.
I believe we can do both. We can mine. We can fish. And we can do it responsibly. HB 233 is not the answer.
A balanced, Alaska-first strategy is.
Rep. Kevin McCabe is a legislator from Big Lake, Alaska.
