Alaskan tribal commission warns Eskay Creek mine could harm cross-border rivers

An Alaskan Indigenous consortium is warning that a proposed restart of the Eskay Creek mine in northwestern British Columbia could put downstream communities at risk, reigniting long-running tensions over cross-border consultation and environmental oversight.

The Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission (SEITC) (representing Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian Nations) says it has “major concerns” about the Eskay Creek mine revitalisation project, approved by both British Columbia and the Canadian federal government in late January.

“We are the tribes that will be impacted if anything catastrophic happens,” SEITC President Ester Reese said. “This is our way of life that we’re talking about.”

The project involves an open-pit silver and gold mine about 80 kilometres northwest of Stewart, close to the Alaska border, to be operated by Skeena Gold + Silver. In British Columbia, the Tahltan Central Government supported the project after signing a mineral tax revenue-sharing agreement, and the approval was described by Tahltan leadership as significant under B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), which sets a consent-based framework for certain decisions.

Tahltan Central Government CEO Kerry Carlick called the completion of the consent agreement “historic,” saying, “The signing shows what is possible when we work together, when relationships are built on trust, accountability and mutual respect.”

For Alaskan tribes, the concern is less about the Tahltan’s authority than about potential impacts on shared waters. Reese said SEITC worries an environmental failure could affect rivers that flow from British Columbia into southeast Alaska, including the Unuk River — a system used for subsistence harvesting and central to community life. About 40 kilometres of the river’s roughly 130-kilometre length crosses into Alaska.

Reese referenced the 2014 Mount Polley tailings dam failure in British Columbia as a cautionary example that shapes how downstream communities view mining risks. She said SEITC wants the same level of recognition and a “meaningful seat at the table” when projects could affect their territories across the border.

“Our concern is that these mines are being permitted at rapid rates across the colonial border, and there is no consultation with those that would be impacted most, which are the tribes downstream” she said.

A spokesperson for B.C.’s Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals said the province has consulted with Alaskan tribes and continues to do so, but declined further comment because the matter is before the courts. SEITC has launched legal action alleging inadequate consultation on projects with potential cross-border impacts.

The dispute underscores a growing challenge for governments and industry: how to manage Indigenous rights, consent frameworks, and environmental risk when watersheds cross colonial borders… and when the communities most exposed to harm may sit outside the jurisdiction making the final decision.