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 What it fails to say is that number is based on outdated 2018 data.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.
So, Alaska (D)Democrats and RINOs have now taken up the two-step shuffle of naming a bill in order to mask its true purpose. Just like the (D)ems in the US Congress for the past 20 years? Say it isn’t so! Lying liars lying again.
I have been a serious supporter of the Pebble Mine since I first saw some good maps and REAL explanations of the whole area, the “watersheds”, and which rivers the salmon actually use. There have been more lies put forth about it than almost anything else in Alaska. Can we even imagine what it would do for the whole southwest part of the state? It would change the whole economic situation for hundreds (if not thousands) of people from a chronically disadvantaged part of Alaska–and help the rest of us too. It appears to me we would have to have the mother of all earthquakes (10+) to change anything in that area. That’s not very likely. So I am absolutely UNAPOLOGETIC about being FOR the Pebble Mine.
Bryce Edgmon is not looking out for Bristol Bay, he’s more of a special interest type politician. He has many voters fooled and is just like the two unethical rino’s out of the southwest. This corrupt majority of legislators is a never Trump group with no interest in the best for Alaska.
A very well written and informative piece!
Good Job Representative McCabe!
Let’s hear it for getting rid of the trawlers. Along with the miles long high seas drift netters, the fish don’t stand a chance. And get rid of the herring fishery too. I’m a strong supporter of our commercial fishermen but wanton waste in unacceptable.
No surprise. Districts 37 (Edgmon)& 38 (Nellie Jimmie) make up Senate District S,
Lyman Hoffman.
Edgmon is a product of the Trawl Fishery.
Nellie Jimmie is a campaign bought puppet of Calista, property holders for the Donlin Mine on the Kuskokwmin River.
So which way will Hoffman bounce? My guess would be a hard no to the Bill. He’s partners in a gold mine sitting right next door to the Donlin Mine Prospect. He’s also Calista’s favorite Senator.
So I rate this Bill as cheap campaign theater, sponsored by Bryce. From way out here in District 38, I’m counting a 20-20 vote split in the house. Nellie was put in the House for a reason by Calista which was too stop Bills like this. Furthermore you can bet Hoffman doesn’t want to have to vote on something that could kill his golden goose in his retirement years, in his last year in the Senate.
Same as he doesn’t want the PFD officially killed off in his fortyth year in the Senate. Lyman wants his version of political theatrical theater to usher him into retirement. Lyman wants no controversial votes.
So all this leaves me with one burning question..Why didn’t Bryce Edgmon just raise the 3% tax rate,after write offs to something like 20%?
If the Tax was too high to be profitable, mining wouldn’t happen. Trawlers would be happy. That’s all the eggs in one basket for the dysfunctional Democrats.
For the record, I’m opposed to the mines. First and foremost, simply because 3% after write-offs, for foreign mining companies, for our resources, is a nonstarter for Alaskans.
I’ll go with the mining ban if we also ban all commercial fishing in Bristol bay. Let the games begin.
Edgmon wants to be environmental let’s shut the entire place down.
The Pebble Project is on a small tributary of one of the rivers in Bristol Bay. The vast majority of permit holders for the Bay do not live in the region, the majority of drift permit holders aren’t even Alaskans. If this were about the fishermen in the area, which it certainly isn’t, they’d actually address the limited entry permit system that has monetized a community resource and sold it to outside interests…which ironically is something that those opposed to Pebble complain about regarding mining but simply disregard when it comes to who holds the permits to fish in the Bay.
Kennecott mine sits on an amazing copper deposit as well. Miners dumped tailings in that river for years and the fish run is doing quite well. There is copper exposed on every mountain side up there with rain and snow melt running across it and directly into the river and yet the fish keep coming so I question all this wonderful science steve o. Unfortunately most of these modern scientists are spawned from a liberal not in my back yard university system that seems set on destroying our economy then our country. Science has become political and I believe even you could agree with that. And that’s why there is no curefor what ails us. Meanwhile we are transmitting this blog on devices made from every metal and oil product known to man.
Steve; You are partly correct about who owns BB permits, however the remainder of the BB permit holders are primarily from Washington state who are Americans and Trump wants what’s best for America not foreign mining companies that give a hoo-doo about the largest red salmon run in the world.
You are incorrect on the intended size of the defunct proposed pebble as they were caught on tape lying about how they would apply for a smaller mine and expand which they pled guilty to security’s fraud, payed 6.3 million but still owe investors 195 million.$.
You and McCabe need to do some research.
Summarize; Trump and Alaska’s U.S. Senator’s appose pebble. Congressman Begich has never supported it, I don’t support it and the vast majority of Alaskans do not support it 😉
3rd,
Do you still think that the proposed mine would be 185 times larger than the largest open pit mine in the world, or have you accepted the reality that it would be impossible to make a mine 185 time larger than the largest mine in the world that has taken well over 100 years to make?
Big,Beautiful bill!
It would be awesome if it actually shuts down the commercial fishery as well. You want back to nature let’s get it done. No mining no fishing.
With the push to electrify via solar and wind, responsible mining makes more sense than mining with child and slave labor and no environmental safeguards in the Congo (see ‘https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/congo-democratic-republic-drc). Furthermore, if we “buy local,” we help our economy while reducing shipping costs (i.e., less fuel consumed).
Thanks for the article, Kevin.
I agree 100% with you pj. The left doesn’t care that children making slave wages working in dangerous conditions are mining the materials that they rely on day in and day out. Not to mention an unreliable supply of these critical materials.
Rep. McCabe needs a refresh on pebble as President Trump shut down pebble with his Army Corp. of Engineer’s permit denial in his first term.
Also , the Red Dog mine is not in the middle of BB red salmon spawning grounds and yes, the health of that salmon run is a special interest, a God given interest that must be guarded from foreign mining that has no clean up responsibility after the worlds largest open pit mine shuts down.
Summarize; Could Rep. McCabe’s motives be that he has a financial interest (special interest) in pebble? By the way Representative, parent Co. Northern Dynasty is on the hook for security’s fraud for lying about the true size of the now defunct open pit mine.
That mine could be built and operated without any problems. Constantly people like you say (foreign mining companies). Which are actually owned by mostly American investors on the NYSE. And yes they would have to reclaim after mining anything, why is it you fools constantly throw that misinformation in ?? Does it make you feel good ?? Meanwhile you transmit your crap over copper circuits using lithium batteries from your electric car.
Doug; Greenland, Ukraine and Africa are the new mining bonanza’s.
The real issue out in Bristol Bay is demographics.
BBNA derives it’s power and influence from creating a dependency upon BBNA through controlling the poverty of it’s members.
The families that dominate BB politics derive their prosperity from the power of BBNA and other entitlements.
A prosperous non-fishing industry in Bristol Bay would create a population of full-time well-paid workers. These would either be current residents no longer dependent upon BBNA and government entities, or a significant population of new residents disinterested in maintaining the BB status quo.
Now, let’s not even mention the additional challenges commercial license holders would have in filling their boats with crew.
So no, the very foundation of opposition to Pebble ISN’T ecological. It’s strictly oligarchical.
Good, informative article but the math on the Pebble tax revenues doesn’t seem to add up. An average of 25 million per year for say 50 years would bring in a total of 1.25 billion tax dollars.
If the mine has 400 billion worth of minerals that’s a return to the state of less than one third of one percent.
Additionally, revenue of 25 million per year is almost a rounding error in a 16 billion dollar annual budget heading for 20. Mindful of what Jay Hammond thought about Pebble it’s not worth the risk.
The perceived benefit of a thousand mining jobs seems speculative without some sort of guarantee they’ll go to Alaskans. The two Juneau area mines employ a lot of outsiders.
If the State can get a much bigger slice of that 400 billion then Pebble would make more sense.
I fully agree with what McCabe says about the trawling industry waste though. It’s an unmitigated environmental disaster.
Thanks for bringing the latest House shenanigan to our attention, Kevin!
I believe there is a 3% royalty tax on these kinds of mines, along with the corporate income tax. I suspect the math shown is incorrect and the amount paid to the state would be factors of multitude greater. If I recall correctly mines paid the state well over $100,000,000.00 last year or the year before, the amount of royalties and other taxes from this project would dwarf all of the others combined.
That the usual people are against mining and resource development in the name of fish and blah, blah, blah, then I am completely convinced mining and development are good things.
$15-$20M? That’s less than the cannabis industry returns to the state, and, that’s largely a completely in state industry.
The constitutionalists among us should be yelling about “Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle…” for state residents.