Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/25/1997 01:30 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SSHB 128 - WATER QUALITY; WATER SCIENCE OVERSIGHT BD [Contains considerable discussion of HB 51 at tape numbers 1006- 1189 and 1871-2263] Number 0058 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the first order of business was Sponsor Substitute for 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." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON, sponsor, explained that SSHB 128 provides a means to improve and Alaskanize water quality standards in the state. He believes standards are often predicated on scientific research from other states or countries, with little or no relationship to Arctic and sub-Arctic conditions. The bill allows the Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) to form partnerships with interested parties to seek funding for water quality research, with a goal of substituting science and certainty for emotion and politics where possible. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said without Alaska-specific research, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will not accept specific Alaska changes to water quality regulations. He expressed confidence that all parties will agree to the concept of forming a partnership to seek funding for five years of technical research. Number 0313 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON reported that the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation (ASTF) has expressed interest in funding this research. However, it will only accept an application from a public agency if that agency is in partnership with a private organization. He advised that the ASTF may not exist soon. However, if that is not a source, he believes there are others. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON advised that SSHB 128 sets up a process and an organization that can try to obtain ASTF or federal funds. He does not intend to request general funds for this research. Number 0378 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON explained that the sponsor substitute removed interim regulations. At the beginning of session, permit holders from the mining community had approached him, expressing concerns about the permitting process in Alaska. He had worked with them and the ADEC to agree on specific interim regulations, included in the original bill. Now, he is working closely with the Administration, who are moving rapidly and deliberately to address many interim standards on their own. As long as he sees that progress, he sees no need for the legislature to place its own standards. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON generally believes regulation should not be micromanaged. However, frustration on all sides makes legislative oversight necessary. To that end, he had formally urged swift consideration of technical matters by the ADEC and cooperation of the industry. He had not treated one differently from the other, and he believes they both depend and rely upon each other. Number 0559 DAVID STONE, President, Council of Alaska Producers, came forward to testify. The council is a nonprofit corporation composed of all the major mining companies doing business in Alaska: Alaska Gold Company; American Copper and Nickel Company, Incorporated/INCO; Coeur Alaska, Incorporated; Cominco Alaska, Incorporated; Echo Bay Mines; Fairbanks Gold Mining, Incorporated; Greens Creek Mining Company; Kennecott Exploration; Nevada Goldfields, Incorporated; Newmont Mining Corporation; North Pacific Mining Company/CIRI; Placer Dome, U.S., Incorporated; and USMX, Incorporated. MR. STONE urged support for SSHB 128, saying mining is a bright growth industry in Alaska. He read the last paragraph of an article on mining by Tim Bradner, from the November 10, 1996, Anchorage Daily News, which says it is comforting to see expansion of an industry that will require a skilled, highly paid work force. MR. STONE said they agree but believe Alaska's future can be bright for many natural resource industries. However, it depends on environmental regulations that protect Alaska's air and water while allowing responsible development. He believes SSHB 128 helps achieve that. He deferred to McKie Campbell. Number 0756 McKIE CAMPBELL, Consultant for the Council of Alaska Producers, addressed questions that had arisen. He said if there is no funding, nothing will happen. The law would exist, and efforts to work with the ADEC to obtain other funding could continue. He emphasized that this type of research is necessary before the EPA will consider changing water quality regulations. MR. CAMPBELL cited Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing as an example of appropriate research. Even if individual discharge levels are met, there may be synergistic reactions. However, present WET testing gives "flukey" results. While the council does not believe those tests should be either more stringent or more liberal, they do believe the testing should be evaluated. Number 0896 MR. CAMPBELL explained that similarly, the Water Science Oversight Board would only be active if there is funding. He noted that committee packets contain two legal opinions regarding board appointments. The first, dated March 4, 1996, by James Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, states there may be a constitutional issue. Mr. Campbell said he believes the Department of Law, in defense of the governor's powers, has always tried to have the least restrictions upon the governor's ability to appoint. MR. CAMPBELL referred to the second opinion, dated March 14, 1997, from Terri Lauterbach, Legislative Counsel, Division of Legal and Research Services. Mr. Campbell said Ms. Lauterbach does not believe this would be a constitutional problem. MR. CAMPBELL expressed appreciation for the cooperative relationship established with Commissioner Brown and the ADEC, regardless of whether parties agreed or disagreed on particular points. He concluded by urging passage of SSHB 128. Number 1006 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN referred to HB 51, currently being debated on the House floor. He asked how the two bills differ and whether there are areas where they will compete. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON replied that SSHB 128 will produce scientific data that will legitimize some concerns expressed in HB 51. He believes it complements HB 51. Number 1070 MR. CAMPBELL indicated the council does not see a conflict. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked for clarification. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON elaborated, saying SSHB 128 provides scientific research that will be the basis for the ultimate Alaska water quality standards on most of the major contentious issues, such as mixing zones and WET testing, over which the ADEC has been battling with federal agencies. The industry tells him they are prepared to live with standards arrived at under SSHB 128 because those will be based on scientific research, not politics. Number 1129 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said SSHB 128 tries to establish standards, then, rather than be a testing mechanism for standards that might be approved if HB 51 goes through. From that standpoint, it appears they may be in competition. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested that Commissioner Brown respond. He restated his belief that there is no conflict. Number 1189 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked who opposes SSHB 128. MR. CAMPBELL said they may hear concerns about components of the bill, including whether the governor will have unfettered appointment ability for the board. The council believes SSHB 128 provides a balanced approach, and appointees are required to have academic and professional expertise in water quality science. Although there may be discussion that somehow the board should be totally removed from politics, he does not know how that is done. He is unaware of anyone opposing SSHB 128 outright. Number 1277 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated his understanding that there is concern the board may be tilted in one direction. MR. CAMPBELL believes there is a feeling that the board is fairly balanced but should be appointed by a nonpolitical entity. He pointed out that the board's role is advisory, which he believes is important as far as constitutionality. Number 1370 MICHELE BROWN, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation, came forward to testify. She said the Administration is pleased by the change in the sponsor substitute. They are also heartened by the caliber of discussion. She thanked Co-Chairman Hudson and the council for that approach in a time of growing and needless polarization over environmental management. COMMISSIONER BROWN said Alaskans' well-being is inextricably tied to water quality. Maintaining it begins with setting good water quality standards, which must protect public health, value resources and foster and respect all water users. To that extent, the ADEC shares SSHB 128's vision of seeking to Alaskanize standards. The bill will supplement their efforts, which include using sound science, good resource management principles and full public participation in setting standards. Number 1434 COMMISSIONER BROWN said equally important is the application of standards. In applying standards, the ADEC considers specific information on water bodies and contaminants. They use those specifics to permit discharge; create mixing zones, which are variances wherein standards can be exceeded; create site-specific criteria to handle the exceeding of standards for specified water bodies where it will not cause harm; and classify and reclassify water bodies for specified uses. These tools allow them to accommodate particular activities without downgrading standards statewide. COMMISSIONER BROWN discussed roles of the EPA and the state. The federal Clean Water Act gives states the duty to set standards. The EPA retains four functions. First, it develops effluent technology requirements, equipment that certain kinds of processes must use to reduce the amount of pollutants discharged. Second, it develops scientific guidelines on pollutants. States frequently do not have money for necessary research. The EPA does that research and makes it available as guidance for the states, which may use it as they choose in setting standards. If states have their own research, they may use that. COMMISSIONER BROWN said third, the EPA reviews and approves state standards to ensure consistency with the Clean Water Act. Fourth, it takes over and writes standards when it believes a state has not properly done so. She believes in avoiding that at all costs. The one time it occurred in Alaska, the National Toxics Rule (NTR) was imposed, leading to problems with arsenic levels, for instance. Number 1545 COMMISSIONER BROWN explained that a standard is defined as the maximum pollutant concentration that a water body can absorb yet still maintain the water uses for which it has been used or could be used. These include drinking water, industrial usage, agriculture, aquaculture, fishing and other uses. COMMISSIONER BROWN said when the ADEC works on setting standards, they start with a thorough scientific review. They do independent research, use the EPA's research, and look at what other states and Canada do. They then carefully look at Alaska's multiple water uses and consult with users to ensure everyone's interests are considered. COMMISSIONER BROWN said that kind of detailed process is currently underway for 13 standards, 12 of which were identified by industry and the public as most in need of review and update. She pointed out that scientific information is constantly changing, and it is appropriate to constantly review standards to ensure they are up- to-date. The 13th standard, the mixing zone standard, is currently out for public review. Number 1604 COMMISSIONER BROWN referred to two charts. The first, dated 2/18/97, addresses the 12 standards currently under review. Some issues are resolved, and others are underway. COMMISSIONER BROWN briefly discussed the second chart, entitled "WQS Review Process." She believes SSHB 128 will complement the ADEC's efforts and enable them, should they gain funding, to tackle difficult issues requiring Alaska-specific research. When necessary, it will also enable them to convince the EPA a suggested standard is inappropriate and that Alaska has a sound scientific basis for its own. Number 1699 COMMISSIONER BROWN concurred with Co-Chairman Hudson that water quality issues are highly volatile and emotional. There are competing livelihood demands and serious health issues. The more science and rationality brought to this process, the better. COMMISSIONER BROWN discussed mixing zones. Variances from existing standards, they are highly controversial. The ADEC has been revising standards to more clearly demonstrate how the department will exercise its discretion and balance views on mixing zones. They have held six public hearings and workshops, factored in over 500 comments and spent hundreds of hours in research and individual conversations "on just about every word in this proposed reg." Those standards are out for final public comment. COMMISSIONER BROWN said as painful as that process has been, she believes it is necessary. Because the subject is so complex, there must be painstaking research and analysis to ensure that a standard is not created that inadvertently creates a problem for someone else. The ADEC is convinced this type of negotiated stakeholder rule-making is the way to build certainty, common sense and rationality in the process. A science board and the kind of research in SSHB 128 will certainly further that effort. Number 1781 COMMISSIONER BROWN expressed concern that the board is set up in a way that politicizes it. Most boards are set up with the governor making the appointment, because they work with the executive branch. She noted that the Attorney General's office believes there is a constitutional separation of powers issue. COMMISSIONER BROWN stated concern that the board is not simply advisory because the bill mandates the ADEC to adopt regulations when the board tells them to. It also says the board is to direct and oversee. COMMISSIONER BROWN suggested appointments be made by the governor. Beefing up the required scientific credentials would also be acceptable to ensure board members are focused on the science. Number 1835 COMMISSIONER BROWN advised that the ADEC has a few minor technical changes, clarifications of language, that she has spoken to McKie Campbell about and that can be worked out in the future. The board composition is the only issue outstanding. "When we resolve that, we'd like to join with you to move this quickly through," she stated. Number 1871 COMMISSIONER BROWN addressed HB 51. She does not believe the two bills contradict each other, although they differ in methodology. While SSHB 128 seeks to Alaskanize standards, HB 51, for reasons that baffle her, defers to the federal government. COMMISSIONER BROWN emphasized that the federal government does not set standards for Alaska. "And when they did, we hated it," she said. "Why we would turn over our standards to them is beyond me. We don't want them to manage our fish and wildlife. We can't stand the way they manage our forests. They're driving us crazy with their interpretation of RS 2477. Why we would turn over something as important as water quality standards to them, when they base them on what's going on in New Jersey, I just cannot understand." COMMISSIONER BROWN advised that she has spent a lot of time trying to convince the EPA that Alaska has very different conditions. She said SSHB 128 provides the tools to convince the EPA that Alaska is different and needs to set its own standards that make sense for Alaska. COMMISSIONER BROWN pointed out that Alaska has more competing resource users than most states. She believes there can be mining next to fishing. It's a question of good management and of being good neighbors to each other. However, HB 51 does not encourage that kind of multiple use. It says the first user on the block gets to use up the water body, and if the rest are cut out, so be it. She believes that is not in Alaska's best economic or "good neighbor" interests. Number 1941 COMMISSIONER BROWN said while SSHB 128 emphasizes good science before making decisions, HB 51 says it wants good science but proceeds to adopt standards without having looked at any science. She believes SSHB 128 provides a good long-term approach and protects all users. COMMISSIONER BROWN stated, "I think HB 51 is a tempting quick-fix, although I'm not quite sure for whom, because I've yet to hear any industry say they really support it. It's an attempt to paint with a broad brush, to say if one industrial discharger needs a standard to be lowered in a certain area, then the standard for the whole state should lower, as opposed to, you keep the standard and the protective basis, but if you need to change it on a site-specific basis and you can show it doesn't do harm, as we've done in a number of sites, then you change that. So it's a difference in approach." Number 2002 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN discussed the possibility of an increased standard if, for example, multiple uses occur where previously someone else operated in compliance with the EPA standard. COMMISSIONER BROWN said she did not follow. She advised that the Clean Air Act sets national standards. In contrast, under the Clean Water Act, the federal government only sets standards when a state does not. They offer scientific guidelines, but not for everything. For example, they have no mixing zones. Number 2120 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON advised that he hesitated to get too deep into HB 51 without the sponsor. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he was trying to make sure there is no conflict. He recalled a discussion the previous year about federal levels. COMMISSIONER BROWN replied that she does not believe this is a direct conflict. The only place where there could conceivably be a conflict is if the state does research and finds that a stricter standard than the federal government's criteria is necessary to protect Alaska's water resources. Under HB 51, Alaska would not be allowed to use its research, even if it showed a stricter standard was needed. Commissioner Brown cited the example of turbidity standards. Number 2209 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said SSHB 128 tries to develop scientific standards that could be used, if necessary, to change the statutes modified by HB 51. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to Commissioner Brown's indication that there are no federal standards and asked for clarification. Number 2263 COMMISSIONER BROWN explained it is federal criteria guidance. The criterion is a scientific basis, such as maximum pollutant load, which when applied to water uses becomes a standard. Although both are loosely called "standards," they are different. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that using the EPA criteria and Alaska's uses, there is a way to establish some limit based on the EPA criteria. COMMISSIONER BROWN responded, "If they have criteria. There's a number that they don't have criteria for." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said evidently there were some, though. COMMISSIONER BROWN agreed. Number 2347 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked: If Alaska goes through this type of research group and discovers a lower level of pollutants should be allowed, would the state tell the EPA they believe it should be more stringent and show them why? And until that could be shown, would there be no change? COMMISSIONER BROWN said where the federal government has criteria, and the scientific research for it, the state would have to prove alternative scientific research to justify a different standard, which could be either less or more stringent. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether at that point, the EPA must go along with it. COMMISSIONER BROWN said the EPA must approve the state's standards. For example, the federal government had just approved a change in Alaska's arsenic standards. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he believes that intermediate step is important. TAPE 97-32, SIDE B Number 0006 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he had been concerned that an operator complying with state standards would be subject to rapid change in standards. He believes this would be more detrimental than slower or more gradual changes by the EPA. COMMISSIONER BROWN replied that she believes both federal standards and criteria change more quickly than Alaska's because they have the research tools. Any change by the ADEC goes through a full public process under the Administrative Procedures Act, and the board would not be empowered to pass standards or regulations. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said this is advisory to another action. COMMISSIONER BROWN said it is a precursor to another action. Number 0103 JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, came forward to testify. Although his written opinion of March 4, 1997, addressed the original version of the bill, the applicable section relating to composition of the Water Science Oversight Board is basically unchanged. MR. BALDWIN said the proposed statute may violate the separation of powers doctrine inherent in the state constitution. First, it leaves appointment of executive branch officials largely in the hands of someone other than the governor. It also provides an overly restrictive, limited list for those members whom the governor may appoint. MR. BALDWIN expressed interest in ensuring the most legally defensible set of regulations. He stated concern that regulations relating to water quality would be highly litigious. Number 0210 MR. BALDWIN said he respects the opinions of Ms. Lauterbach. However, he believes the correct way to look at whether a board is advisory or not is by who listens to the advice. If the board gives fairly important advice to fairly important people, such as the commissioner of a principal department of state government, and it is a necessary step in the adoption process of regulations, then those factors together mean "that we have to be very careful." This is an important board, and the fact that it is advisory in nature is not going to carry the day. MR. BALDWIN noted that Ms. Lauterbach had not cited a case supporting her conclusion. He referred to Bradner v. Hammond, cited in his opinion, which indicates the legislature only has a role in the appointment process when the constitution specifically provides for it. That case arose from the legislature's desire to confirm executive officials not specifically named in the constitution. Mr. Baldwin takes the reasoning in that case to say there really is not much of a role in the appointment process, other than confirmation, for legislators. MR. BALDWIN said since this is not a principal department head or quasi-judicial or regulatory board, there would be no confirmation. Therefore, it would be a noticeable legal issue that may get wound up in any litigation resulting over the regulations. He said the ultimate point to worry about is defending these regulations and making them carry the day when they are adopted. Number 0305 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON responded that he would be more inclined to agree if just the Speaker of the House or President of the Senate presented candidates. This requires a list of three, all of whom could be struck by the governor, who could then request another list. The intent is to depoliticize it. The governor chooses, but from a list managed or developed by the House and Senate. Number 0376 MR. BALDWIN said on a continuum, it is not as bad as it could be. However, the effect is that the legislative officers make the appointment. He suggested a scheme that would pass constitutional muster. The bill could specify the desired qualifications of appointees, then require the governor to consult with presiding officers of the legislature. The bill could also require, for example, that appointees be recognized in their fields. MR. BALDWIN commended the sponsor for providing real compensation for private members of the board. He believes that is extremely important for getting good people. Number 0426 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON pointed out that the bill specifies, at least generally, that candidates have academic credentials and Alaska- based expertise in the field of water quality. He acknowledged perhaps there could be a deeper definition. Number 0442 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN posed a hypothetical situation where the board is established, recommends a change, and that change occurs. If a court decided that board was not properly constituted, he wondered whether litigation or other legal action could affect the change made on the board's recommendation. MR. BALDWIN replied that it is highly possible since the board's recommendation is a necessary step in the enactment process, as he reads it. He is less sure whether someone could contest the validity of scientific information provided by the board. However, one could contend the board's influence is so pervasive over the ADEC's decision-making that there is a defect possibly emanating from the composition of the board itself. MR. BALDWIN explained one reason for the separation of powers doctrine is so each branch of government acts within its own sphere, without one predominating over another. He stated, "And if someone were to say, `Well, what happened here is that really this wasn't an executive act at all, it was really a legislative act when the power was given to the commissioner,' then that's a serious legal defect ...." Number 0518 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to subsection (c), beginning on page 3, line 15, and pointed out that the board shall review and comment; meet at the request of the commissioner; provide advice to the department; and report annually to the governor, the House and the Senate. These are constructive, important elements in order to come up with bipartisan, scientifically-based standards. He believes both the industry and the environmental community want that. He said the action defined in SSHB 128 is all advisory, and he believes it is a well-crafted mechanism to establish standards. Number 0598 MR. BALDWIN pointed out that this board is a necessary element. If science becomes the basis of regulations, when the regulations are tested, the basis will also be tested, as well as composition of the board and every other element that smart, well-paid lawyers can bring into litigation. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said the board, as he sees it, gets scientists together and tries to put the research together in the kind of language that legislators and the administration will understand. He is not inclined to accept that change. Number 0661 CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN referred to separation of powers and said the legislature had already delegated a great deal of authority to the ADEC, which regulates and adjudicates the regulations. He suggested bureaucracy is currently a fourth branch of government. Number 0723 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether other boards were made of a composite. MR. BALDWIN said yes, there are other boards where the legislature has charted its own course. "I wouldn't cite them as reasons why we should do it again," he cautioned. Number 0772 JIM BACON came forward to testify. A commercial fisherman, he supports SSHB 128. He expressed appreciation for the good-faith effort to address concerns about the original version. MR. BACON believes the bill seeks to establish good, sound scientific findings that can address unique situations in Alaska and bring about a system whereby the seafood industry can work in concert with other industries in the state and move forward. "And that is something that we would very much like to do," he concluded. Number 0863 SUSAN SCHRADER, Executive Director, Alaska Environmental Lobby (AEL), came forward to testify. She advised that member groups represent over 10,000 Alaskans, united in the belief that there is ample room in Alaska for both a strong state economy and strong environmental protection. They also believe there cannot be one without the other. MS. SCHRADER said resource-extracting industries must be able and willing to expend funds to conduct activities with the utmost care for the resources. They must also recognize and respect other water resource users who depend on its purity for their livelihood and enjoyment. Under the public trust doctrine, the legislature has an affirmative duty to manage water resources for the public good, not just for private gain of individual interests. MS. SCHRADER expressed appreciation for the sponsor's efforts in working with the ADEC and in keeping the AEL briefed. The AEL is pleased the interim standards have been deleted, which goes a long way towards making the bill more balanced. Number 0971 MS. SCHRADER cautioned that a couple of concerns prevent the AEL from fully endorsing SSHB 128. First, as discussed by others, is the board composition. Whether or not it will be politicized, it will certainly have that appearance. For that reason, the AEL believes it would be difficult for the board to gain the confidence of the many stakeholders involved in water quality issues. MS. SCHRADER said the AEL foresees that SSHB 128 will result in good science and the adoption of improved regulations that industry will feel more comfortable with. However, the ADEC's funding is inadequate to implement these regulations. The AEL supports continued dialogue along the lines that SSHB 128 has initiated. They suggest additional funding for the ADEC, so that department can continue to fulfill its mission of protecting water quality. Number 1088 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked how Ms. Schrader would propose that the board members be selected to meet the objectivity criteria. MS. SCHRADER indicated she is not familiar with water quality research in particular. In medical research, her own background, the research itself is removed from political influences. Number 1152 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said someone must make a choice. He asked whether Ms. Schrader believes it would be more objective if the governor chose. MS. SCHRADER said she does not know because she lacks real knowledge of water quality research. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON questioned whether it would be perceived as more objective if the AEL or industrial users selected the board. Number 1218 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON advised that there is a fiscal note from the ADEC. He said there is a fairly strong indication that substantial funds may be available from federal sources or others. He believes the ASTF was ultimately designed to participate in producing scientific standards that both the environmental and developmental communities can agree upon. Number 1258 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to Representative Dyson's questions. He commented that the logical conclusion is to have a diverse group select the board. He believes SSHB 128 reflects that. MS. SCHRADER responded that the AEL does not believes the bill reflects the diversity of input with which they would feel comfortable. Number 1325 REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE suggested a highly politicized board may be positive because it places participants under intense scrutiny. He expressed concern over funding and suggested passing a fiscal note reflecting support, rather than just having the legislation sit on the books. If for some reason other funding were unavailable, perhaps the fiscal note could kick in. Number 1460 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON replied that he would be diligently searching for funding. He prefers to stick with the mode in place, which is to create the board, establish the process, embark on a search for scientific funds and "go for it." REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that in his district, there has been some mining development, and there will be more in other areas. This provides an avenue in rural Alaska for people to obtain work. But it also provides a safety net for ensuring development occurs in an environmentally sound manner. Number 1594 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON advised that SSHB 128 next goes to the House Finance Committee. He stated his intention, as it moves from one committee to the next, to discuss again with the commissioner and others whether fine tuning is necessary. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he has several questions. He offered to talk with the sponsor about them privately. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced he would hold SSHB 128 until the next meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|