Gov. Frank Murkowski's water-protection bureaucrats have proposed lifting the state's ban on "mixing zones" in Alaska's fish-spawning streams. "Mixing zones" are a common feature of water-pollution permits. They are areas where higher levels of pollutants are allowed on the theory that they will be harmlessly diluted throughout the wider water body. "Pollution-dilution zones" would be a more accurate name.

Alaska is one of the few states that ban these pollution-dilution zones in fish-spawning streams and rivers. Alaska is also the only state where the vast majority of rivers and streams are unpolluted and wild salmon runs are still healthy. But maybe that's just a coincidence.

The governor's mixing-zone legalization proposal is a new variation on one that was issued last year and stalled after drawing vociferous opposition. The main impetus is to help industries that need an affordable place to dump their wastes, whether soft organics or hard rock.

The new version is a still basically a "trust me" deal. It asks Alaskans to trust the technocrats whose job is to protect water quality. Essentially, Alaskans are being told, "We'll make sure those pollution-dilution zones don't hurt fish spawning."

But does the state have the money and staff expertise to make good on that promise? Processing complicated requests for newly legalized mixing zones will put a much bigger burden on the state's already limited staff.

Alaska has in the past declined to take on expensive new water-quality responsibilities. It is one of the few states that still lets the federal government take the lead in handling water-quality permits. Taking over those permits would be an expensive job, and Alaska lawmakers haven't wanted to spend the necessary money in the past.

But let's assume state bureaucrats get the money and the support they would need to appropriately process and enforce the newly legalized mixing zones. If no harm is going to result, why do the proposed rules contain what might be called a "harm mitigation" option?

In the proposal, a polluter could get an exemption to the ban on pollution-dilution zones with an approved mitigation plan. One way to get that exemption is to "compensate for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments."

In other words, it might be OK to harm a stream with a pollution-dilution zone as long as you make up for the damage elsewhere. That is simply not acceptable.

The governor's so-called mixing-zone proposal opens the door to new, harmful pollution in Alaska's famously clean streams and rivers. It will undercut the pristine reputation of the state's wild salmon, further weakening an industry that is already struggling. Trust us: If there is one thing Alaska doesn't need, it's new rules that make it easier to pollute the state's waters.

BOTTOM LINE: Allow pollution-dilution zones in Alaska's salmon streams? No thanks.

Also see Ekwok Village Council resolution in opposition to Mixing Zones.