Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/07/1997 01:38 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 128
"An Act relating to water quality; directing the
Department of Environmental Conservation to conduct
water quality research; establishing the Water Science
Oversight Board; and providing for an effective date."
1
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON, SPONSOR HB 128, spoke in support
of HB 128. He stated that the legislation would, "to the
greatest extent possible, substitute science and certainty
for the emotional and political debate that often
characterizes water quality regulations in this state." He
noted that the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
will not accept Alaska specific changes to water quality
regulations. He asserted that the legislation would provide
an impartial, non-political research organization to develop
good scientific data. The legislation also charges the
Department of Environmental Conservation to establish
regulations based on the Board's recommendations. He noted
that the Sponsor Substitute removed interim regulations from
the original bill. He noted that the Department of
Environmental Conservation and permit holders have agreed on
the implementation of interim regulations.
In response to a question by Representative Davies,
Representative Hudson listed the Alaska Science and
Technology Foundation, producers and the federal government
as potential funding sources. He assured members that
funding would not come from the General Fund.
Representative Davies observed that industry funded research
could be viewed as "tainted." Representative Hudson
observed the difficulty of providing unbiased research. He
noted that the intent of the legislation is to provide board
oversight based on academic credentials and Alaska-based
expertise in the field of water quality.
Representative Davies asked if industry would contract
directly with scientists or if money would be donated to the
Department of Environmental Conservation as program
receipts. Representative Hudson stated that the Department
of Environmental Conservation would administer the
contracts. He explained that private funding would be used
to match federal or Alaska Science and Technology Foundation
funding. He noted that the Legislature would have annual
oversight.
In response to comments by Representative Martin,
Representative Hudson reiterated that the goal is to obtain
non-biased, scientific data. He added that state primacy
requires involvement by the Department of Environmental
Conservation. He emphasized that the Department of
Environmental Conservation, EPA and industry must feel that
the process is scientific and not political.
Representative Martin asserted that appointments by the
Governor, Speaker, and Senate President will be political.
2
He stated that he has confidence in the Department of
Environmental Conservation.
Representative Hudson emphasized that the legislation is the
result of recommendations from industry. He stressed that
the legislation will have a positive effect on the
development of mining and fish processing in Alaska. He
noted the importance of water quality for economic
development in Alaska. He observed that the legislation
could have been drafted to allow the Governor to appoint the
Water Science Oversight Board and the Legislature to confirm
members. He acknowledged that the Department spoke against
appointments by the Speaker and Senate President.
Representative Martin maintained that $400 hundred dollar a
day compensation is too high. He observed that Alaska
Science and Technology Foundation Board members are
compensated at $200 hundred dollars a day. Representative
Hudson stated that emphasized that the compensation level
was set to attract people with a scientific background.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the Board oversees the
contract work. He emphasized that the Board should not be
on the state payroll. He noted that the intent is that the
scientific credentials of those doing the research would
support the results.
Representative Martin maintained that Department of
Environmental Conservation employees would not only be
interested in supporting the Governor's position. Co-Chair
Therriault stressed that industry and the EPA might be
suspicious of results provided by the Department of
Environmental Conservation.
Representative Davis asked the position of the fishing
industry. Representative Hudson stated that he has not been
contacted with concerns or support. He emphasized that
mining is not the only industry that would benefit from the
legislation.
Representative Davis pointed out that the mining and fishing
industries are the two major users of the water resource.
He invited participation of fishing groups. Representative
Hudson anticipated that the fishing industry would be
involved and would benefit from the scientific research.
Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of having the
Governor appoint members. Representative Hudson stated that
credentials would be paramount. He noted that the option of
having the Governor appoint the members was considered. He
explained that industry felt that the appointment process
contained in the legislation would be scientifically
3
established but philosophically diverse.
MCKIE CAMPBELL, COUNCIL OF ALASKA PRODUCERS spoke in support
of HB 128. He noted that the Council represents all the
largest mining companies in the State. He stressed that the
State must submit changes in state water quality regulations
to EPA. The Environmental Protection Agency is required to
consider the public process and scientific support for the
change. Mr. Campbell maintained that the State has not
provided scientific basis for water quality changes. If EPA
rejects the state change, they are required to promulgate a
federal water quality regulation based on federal
guidelines. He maintained that federal guidelines are more
difficult for industries to work with, without providing
additional environmental protection.
Mr. Campbell asserted that HB 128 provides a framework for
industry and environmental groups to join with the
Department of Environmental Conservation to seek funding for
the scientific research needed to change water quality
regulations. He emphasized that they are not only
interested in loosening regulations. He stated that
industry is interested in making regulations work better.
He noted that test results are dependent on the criteria
used. He stressed that a medium sized mine can cost hundreds
of millions of dollars. He noted that this investment can
be put at risk by testing methods that are not proven. He
discussed "wet testing" to demonstrate that criteria used by
other states are not always appropriate for Alaska. He
noted that the Commissioner of the Department of
Environmental Conservation has worked with industry to solve
problems with wet testing.
Mr. Campbell emphasized the need to provide good quality,
scientific oversight for contracts. He noted that the
intent is to obtain a Board with specific academic and
professional credentials. He spoke against reducing the
compensation rate. He maintained that the compensation rate
is needed to support the level of expertise.
Mr. Campbell stated that the Department of Environmental
Conservation has cooperated on the whole. He emphasized
that complaints regarding service by the Department have
occurred as a result of limitations in their existing
budget.
Mr. Campbell noted that fishing groups have spoke in support
of the legislation in previous committees. He was not aware
of opposition by fishing groups.
Mr. Campbell spoke in support of the appointment process
contained in the legislation. He expressed concern that
4
there is a balance on the Board.
Mr. Campbell stressed that it is possible to protect
Alaska's waters and have a healthy industry.
Representative Grussendorf noted that the State receives a
greater percentage of its revenues from fishing than from
mining. He emphasized that the mining industry should be
prepared to contribute to the cost of providing research.
Mr. Campbell emphasized that the issue is not fishing versus
mining. He maintained that mining permit fees are extremely
high. He added that the mining industry brings good paying
jobs into areas of the state where they are needed.
Representative Martin referred to the findings section. He
noted that the legislation maintains that "the state's water
resources have unique characteristics..."
(Tape Change, HFC 97-87, Side 2)
Mr. Campbell reiterated that testing methods used in other
states do not always work in Alaska, due to water
temperatures and other factors. He noted that Alaska has
higher arsenic levels in its waters.
MICHELLE BROWN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION clarified that the Department does not do
independent scientific research. The Department reviews
existing literature and standards used by other states and
the federal government when promulgating regulations. She
pointed out that the legislation would authorize field
research that is specific to Alaska conditions that can be
used to take issue with the Environmental Protection Agency.
She noted that the State could have overcome the arsenic
issue more quickly if Alaskan data existed.
Co-Chair Therriault suggested that the finding section could
be contained in a letter of intent. Representative Hudson
agreed that the findings section could be contained in a
letter of intent.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Mr.
Campbell clarified that the Department of Environmental
Conservation would form a partnership with one or more users
of water. The partnership would apply for money from the
Alaska Science and Technology Foundation. The Alaska
Science and Technology Foundation will make grants to
entities that involve public entities, but they will not
make grants directly to a public entity. The Department and
the partners would use the money according to the research
plan that was submitted to hire contractors. He noted a
potential for federal funding.
5
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the only boards that
compensate members at $400 dollars a day are the Permanent
Fund Board and the Alaska Railroad Board.
JERRY MCCUNE, UNITED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA (UFA) stated that
UFA does not have a position in regards to the legislation.
He indicated that UFA may have a problem with the
appointment process. He stated that UFA would probably
support appointment by the Governor. He maintained that a
single candidate pool will provide better review.
Representative Martin MOVED to adopt Amendment 1 (copy on
file). Co-Chair Therriault OBJECTED for purposes of
discussion. Amendment 1 would provide that "no member of
the board may be an employee of the Department of
Environmental Conservation except for the commissioner or
the commissioner's designee." Amendment 1 would also reduce
compensation from "400" to "200" hundred dollars a day and
delete authorization for partial day compensation.
Representative Martin maintained that $400 hundred dollars a
day is too much. He stated that he would support
compensation at $200 hundred dollars a day.
Representative Hudson stated that the intent is that only
the commissioner or their designee would sit on the Board.
He did not object to this portion of Amendment 1. He
stressed that compensation should at least be at the same
level as the Alaska Science and Technology Board.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that partial day
compensation can save the State money.
In response to a question by Representative Kelly,
Representative Davies thought that experts could be found
within the State. Representative Hudson noted that broad-
based scientists sit on the Alaska Science and Technology
Board.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to AMEND Amendment 1 by deleting
the reference to page 3, lines 10 - 12, and deleting "$400"
and inserting "200". There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
Representative Davies MOVED to divide the question.
Amendment 1A would insert a new sentence: "No member of the
board may be an employee of the Department of Environmental
Conservation except for the commissioner or the
commissioner's designee." Amendment 1B would change the
compensation from $400 hundred dollars to $200 hundred
dollars a day.
6
Representative Grussendorf asked if the member pointed by
the University of Alaska would be a public employee. He
pointed out that most people doing scientific research would
already be employed by the University or the State.
Mr. Campbell stated that the intent is that people not be
paid double. He did not expect that anyone working for one
of the companies would be nominated. He stressed that the
greatest pool of scientists are either working for the
University or are independent contractors. He emphasized
that they would not be billing other work while they are
working on these contracts.
Representative Davies pointed out that the member appointed
by the president of the University of Alaska does not have
to be an employee of the University. He added that there
are people who are technically employees of the University
but are paid by contract billing to specific research
contracts.
Mr. Campbell noted that discussions with the Legislative
Legal Services Agency indicated that compensation decisions
would be based on each individual case. Representative
Davies suggested that language could be added to clarify
that an employee who is not taking money from the State or
University during the time they are conducting contract
research could be reimbursed.
Representative Martin noted that the University has members
on other boards.
Representative Martin MOVED to adopt Amendment 1A. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Martin MOVED to adopt Amendment 1B.
Representative Davies OBJECTED. He spoke in support of
increasing the daily compensation rate to $300 hundred
dollars. He stressed that professional consultants would
spend time in preparation that they would not charge.
Representative Hudson noted that board members would be
asked to direct the Department of Environmental Conservation
and would have academic credentials and Alaska-based
expertise in the field of water quality.
Representative Mulder clarified that members would receive
travel and per diem in addition to their daily compensation.
Co-Chair Therriault noted members would be compensated for
their preparation time. Mr. Campbell noted that the Board
would watch their own cost. Representative Hudson recounted
that as a member of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
7
Board he found that the Board was very conservative with
compensation.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
1B.
IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Martin, Moses, Mulder, Therriault
OPPOSED: Kelly, Davies, Davis, Foster
Co-Chair Hanley and Representative Kohring were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (5-4).
Representative Davies MOVED to Rescind the Committee's
action in adopting Amendment 1B. A roll call vote was taken
on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Moses, Mulder, Davies, Davis, Grussendorf, Foster,
Kelly
OPPOSED: Martin, Therriault
Co-Chair Hanley and Representative Kohring were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-2).
Representative Davies MOVED to AMEND Amendment 1B by
deleting "$200" and inserting "$300" hundred dollars. A
roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Moses, Mulder, Davies, Davis, Grussendorf, Foster,
Kelly
OPPOSED: Martin, Therriault
Co-Chair Hanley and Representative Kohring were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-2).
Representative Davies MOVED to adopt Amendment 2 (copy on
file). Representative Mulder OBJECTED for purposes of
discussion. Amendment 2 would change "shall" to "may" on
page 2, line 27. Representative Davies stressed that
research would not always require a change of regulation.
He emphasized that the Department should have flexibility.
Representatives Hudson and Davis spoke in support of
"shall".
Co-Chair Therriault stated that the intent is to avoid a
situation where the Board makes a recommendation based on
8
research that the commissioner chooses to ignore.
Representative Martin spoke in support of "may". He
stressed that the authority of the Administration through
the Department should not be delegated to the Board. He
emphasized the need for flexibility.
Representative Hudson noted that the legislation does not
require that the Department submit the water quality
regulations proposed by the Board.
Commissioner Brown spoke in support of "may". She noted
that separation of powers is identified by whether the Board
is advisory or mandatory. If the Board directs the
executive branch the separation of power is not maintained.
She added that "shall" would mandate that the Department
adopt regulations. She stressed that this would preclude
the option of allowing the Department to maintain current
regulation if it is found to be accurate. She observed that
state regulations regarding arsenic were accurate. She
observed that the Environmental Protection Agency requires
the State to make a finding to justify the need or lack of
regulations.
Representative Hudson acknowledged concerns by the
Commissioner and noted that "may" would alleviate a
potential legal challenge.
In response to comments by Representative Kelly, Co-Chair
Therriault pointed out that the legislation attempts to
secure scientific answers. He emphasized that the
legislation speaks to a new process. The legislation does
not answer legislator's frustrations regarding agency
implementation of regulations.
Representative Hudson added that the Department of
Environmental Conservation is directed, in the intent
section, to adopt new regulations as appropriate based on
the research. He stressed that legislators could impose
regulations in law.
(Tape Change, HFC 97-88, Side 1)
Representative Kelly summarized that the Board's
recommendation could be used to implement legislation.
Representative Hudson stressed that there would be a
stronger basis for the legislature to take action if the
Department failed to act.
Representative Davies observed frustration of the Department
of Environmental Conservation's at being asked to do things
that they cannot do. He felt that the Department would
support substantive recommendations by the Board. He
9
pointed out that research does not always result in an end.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Representative Davies MOVED to adopt Amendment 3 (copy on
file). Co-Chair Therriault OBJECTED for purposes of
discussion. Amendment 3 would provide that the Governor
appoint the Board. Representative Davies spoke in support
of Amendment 3. Co-Chair Therriault spoke against the
amendment. He felt that the current procedure would lend a
higher level of acceptance of the research.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
3.
IN FAVOR: Martin, Moses, Davies, Grussendorf
OPPOSED: Davis, Foster, Kelly, Mulder, Therriault
Co-Chair Hanley and Representative Kohring were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4-5).
Representative Davies MOVED to adopt Amendment 4 (copy on
file). Co-Chair Therriault OBJECTED for purposes of
discussion. Representative Davies explained that Amendment
4 would clarify that: "A member of the board who, while
serving the board, is not being compensated as a public
employee." Representative Hudson agreed that the amendment
clarifies that the intent is to not allow double dipping.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 4 was adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault referred to the fiscal note by the
Department of Environmental Conservation, dated 3/24/97. He
noted that the salary for an environmental specialist III is
approximately $60 thousand dollars. Commissioner Brown
explained that the administrative charge back is included in
the personal service line. Co-Chair Therriault questioned
if the administrative cost is high.
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT noted that
the detailed budget book for the Department of Environmental
Conservation identifies the total cost of salary and
benefits, for an environmental specialist III, at $67
thousand dollars. Representative Mulder agreed that the
total cost varies between $60 - $74 thousand dollars.
Commissioner Brown thought the indirect administrative cost
was between 12 and 15 percent. Representative Hudson
suggested that the personal service line be reduced to $75
thousand dollars to allow a higher step increase.
10
Representative Mulder suggested that a personal service line
of $80 thousand dollars would allow adequate compensation
and some administrative charge back.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to reduce the personal service
line, in the Department of Environmental Conservation's
fiscal note from "$100" to "$80" thousand dollars. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault,
Commissioner Brown clarified that the increase in the
contractual line in FY 03 reflects legal services that will
be needed when regulations are actually promulgated. She
explained that there would be a RSA to the Department of Law
to pay for the legal work.
Representative Davies pointed out that the contractual line
should be reduced by $4,800 thousand dollars, to reflect the
reduction in daily compensation to $300 hundred dollars a
day. He MOVED to reduce the contractual line from $28.7 to
$23.9 thousand dollars. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 128 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|