Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/04/2002 03:20 PM House MLV
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 323-EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COMPACT CHAIR CHENAULT announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 323, "An Act relating to emergency and disaster relief forces as state employees for purposes of workers' compensation benefits; relating to the Emergency Management Assistance Compact and the implementation of the compact; and providing for an effective date." [The bill was sponsored by the House Rules Standing Committee by request of the governor.] Number 0146 DAVE LIEBERSBACH, Director, Division of Emergency Services, Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), explained that HB 323 relates to joining the nationwide Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), which provides a framework to rapidly exchange emergency resources, including both personnel and equipment, between states. Although resources can be moved currently, that first requires making agreements between the receiving state and the sending state as to who will pay for what, coverage for workers' compensation, and so forth. By being a member of EMAC, the state already would have pre- agreed to the details. The requesting state pays for those resources it receives. Mr. Liebersbach said there is no financial requirement up front unless there is a disaster for which Alaska requests resources and then pays for them. He offered his belief that 45 states already are EMAC members, and cited Hawaii, Alaska, and California as three that aren't. Number 0381 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to exchanges of "fire jumpers" between Alaska and other states. He asked whether this is prearranged, with costs already determined. MR. LIEBERSBACH answered that it's a national program through the "wildland fire services," and that financial agreements are in place when fire-related resources are sent from Alaska to the Lower 48. The lead was taken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, as well as various agencies of the U.S. Department of the Interior, to provide for that. He explained that EMAC is an attempt by states to fill a vacuum - never filled by a federal agency - for all other types of disasters, called "all-risk" or "all-hazard." Hence this probably wouldn't affect wildland fire resources, but it would affect all others, which have no existing agreements. He noted that many years ago there was frustration with trying to get a federal agency - primarily, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) - to take the lead, but that didn't happen. The compact then began in southeastern states and expanded over the last three or four years to include most states in the nation. Number 0545 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN requested examples of personnel who would be gained in an earthquake, for instance. He asked about medical personnel. MR. LIEBERSBACH agreed there is a possibility of medical personnel. He added that for a federally declared disaster, there is an option of going through FEMA and other federal agencies. However, some state-specific things cannot be obtained through the federal agencies. A couple of years ago, for example, expertise was brought in from Missouri and Iowa under an agreement with those states. He explained, "I didn't really need a federal person here, because we were negotiating with the federal government on these issues, and I needed some people who understood it from a state perspective." MR. LIEBERSBACH went on to say this also provides some assistance - not as much for Alaska as for other states - in moving national guard resources such as helicopters from state to state without having to "federalize the national guard." He indicated that if Alaska had been a member of EMAC, assistance to New York City could have happened more rapidly [following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001]. Number 0750 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether the plan is to have some sort of person or group pre-negotiate services, or whether negotiations will be done after the fact. MR. LIEBERSBACH said costs are set up in the structure of EMAC; they are pre-negotiated and just require concurrence, or refusal to concur, for either sending or receiving. Number 0866 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI observed that the compact makes a lot of sense for neighboring states in the Lower 48. She asked when Alaska has called upon other states for assistance other than for firefighting. MR. LIEBERSBACH cited two examples. First, in 1999 or 2000 he'd requested personnel from Missouri and Iowa following the avalanches, since those states were more familiar with dealing with the new federal disaster-related regulations and requirements; the goal was to resolve issues in favor of the state, rather than the federal government. Second, although it didn't come to fruition, dog teams from Washington State had been considered if the avalanches had worsened. Number 1104 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked why the compact is proposed to be fully incorporated in the statute, since statutory changes will be required if there are changes to the compact. MR. LIEBERSBACH responded that one requirement to become a member of EMAC is that the legislature fully accept or endorse its concepts "in a fairly robust way"; this is unlike many compacts Alaska enters into. As for the decision to put the actual wording in statute, he suggested asking Carol Carroll [of the DMVA]. He explained that one reason he hadn't come forward with the concept of entering EMAC for several years was the desire to watch it maturate in other states and then discuss how it was working with his counterparts in those states. A lot of changes have happened with EMAC in the four years he has been the director of emergency services, he told members, suggesting that now it is a stable product and will have few changes relating to the statutory portion. Number 1308 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether the state may opt out [later]. MR. LIEBERSBACH said he couldn't answer immediately. He offered his belief that this compact doesn't require the state to either send or request people, but lays the groundwork if the state chooses to go this route in an emergency. He also indicated his understanding that other compacts only require the state to give notice before withdrawing. He reported that the other compact in the realm in which he works in a northwestern regional emergency management compact among Alaska, Washington State, Oregon, Idaho, British Columbia, and the Yukon Territory; even after joining EMAC, Alaska will remain in that because it includes the Canadian province and territory. Number 1516 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked about any priorities relating to population or severity, for example, if two or more states require simultaneous emergency medical assistance. MR. LIEBERSBACH answered that in the operational part of EMAC, an "A team" is set up that rotates from state to state about every two years. Citing East Coast hurricanes as something affecting multiple states, he noted that EMAC broadens the resource base. Although FEMA can activate federal resources, it has no authority to activate state resources and send them to another state. Thus if Alaska and California needed medical help simultaneously, in addition to what's available through the federal government - which may well respond to California because of its population, for instance - Alaska would have access to resources through EMAC. He said he didn't know of any instance when a priority was established of one state over another based on such criteria, but suggested that immediate [danger to] life and property would take priority over everything else. Number 1673 CHAIR CHENAULT noted that Section 2 of the bill allows the governor to establish international relationships and mutual aid. He asked whether that is envisioned as part of EMAC. MR. LIEBERSBACH said he isn't totally familiar with it, but offered his understanding that the governor has authority, under Title 26 of current statute, to enter into compacts for mutual aid with other states; he surmised that it would include international agreements, but said he'd have to check the statutes. He went on to say that the northwestern regional compact was entered into through the signature of the governor because of that authority; however, EMAC itself requires coming before the legislature. He suggested the bill just restates the governor's authority to enter into these compacts for emergency management purposes. MR. LIEBERSBACH, in further reply, reported that basically the compact says that whatever the person earns in his/her home state is what the requesting state accepts for wage compensation, health and disability benefits, and so forth. Number 1900 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI observed that Section 5 repeals the Interstate Civil Defense and Disaster Compact. She asked whether the state still operates under the terms of that compact and whether it still exists. MR. LIEBERSBACH answered that it's on the books, but he doubts it has been used for a couple of decades. He related his understanding that EMAC replaces and takes care of everything in that compact. Number 1961 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Ms. Carroll about the reasons for fully incorporating EMAC into the statute itself, rather than adopting it by reference. Number 2015 CAROL CARROLL, Director, Administrative Services Division, Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs, said she didn't know, though the previous one was in statute and portions remain. She added that she could ask the attorneys whether it could just be referenced. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI observed that the bill would be referred to [the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee], which she chairs. She requested that Ms. Carroll find out before the hearing there. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what happens under EMAC if four Alaskan experts are needed at home but are requested by another state. MS. CARROLL replied that Alaska always would have the option to either agree to send them or else to say, "No, we need these people at home." Number 2109 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT concurred with Representative Murkowski's line of questioning. He offered his belief that this [compact] could be adopted by reference, but said he'd wait until a future committee of referral to offer it as an amendment. Number 2139 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI moved to report HB 323 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 323 was reported from the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|