Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/22/1994 09:07 AM Senate FIN
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 308 An Act modifying administrative procedures and decisions by state agencies that relate to uses and dispositions of state land, property, and resources, and to the interests within them, and that relate to land, property, and resources, and to the interests within them, that are subject to the coastal management program; and providing for an effective date. Upon reconvening the meeting, Co-chair Pearce announced that discussion of SB 308 would constitute subcommittee deliberation on the bill. She explained that it would provide the Dept. of Law an opportunity to advise of background information on lawsuits that encouraged the department to introduce the legislation. Further, a group meeting in Anchorage has worked through discussion on two of three major portions of the bill. The group has not yet considered changes to Title 46. Subsequent subcommittee meetings will be had with working group members as suggested language is developed for presentation to committee next week. Co-chair Pearce directed attention to new correspondence from various interests which she noted had been copied and placed in members' files. End: SFC-94, #34, Side 2 Begin: SFC-94, #36, Side 1 KYLE PARKER, Office of the Governor, came before committee and read from a prepared text providing background information and a summary of resource disposal litigation (Mr. Parker's comments were subsequently incorporated within a memo dated March 28, 1994, (copy appended as Attachment D). He explained that the court decision in the Good News Bay sale evidences that, absent some legislative action, the courts are driving the state toward a federal environmental impact process. BARBARA FULLMER, Legal Counsel, Division of Oil and Gas, Dept. of Natural Resources, next spoke via teleconference from Anchorage. She outlined the basics of litigation relating to Sale 78, advising that one day after the appeal period, the sale was appealed by a group including fishermen organizations, a local traditional council, and Trustees for Alaska. The points on appeal were quite broad. They claimed that the division of oil and gas had not adequately considered the pros and cons of the lease sale. The state moved for a more specific accounting of the points on appeal. The court denied that motion. Court action indicates that the court is willing to accept anything. There was no requirement that appellants identify what they are appealing or that conjecture appear earlier in the record. Two weeks prior to the sale, appellants moved for a stay. The court granted that motion, based not on the points of appeal but upon apparent court perusal of regulations under ACMP and selection of an argument not raised by appellants. Oral arguments are to be had in September. That time frame is after the point when the sale could properly go forward without having to again commence the administrative process from the beginning. Senator Rieger inquired concerning the position the administration seeks to assert through the proposed bill. Barbara Fullmer explained that the administration hopes to ensure that the scope of review is molded by public comment received by the department. It is not the intent to limit what the public comments on. The scope of review must address any public comments received during the public comment period. The cutoff point is the materiality of facts and issues raised or known to the director. The director must find that the fact or issue is material, and that finding must rest on the record. Senator Rieger voiced his understanding that public comment would occur prior to a determination by the director concerning to what extent the administrative review is limited. He further advised of his understanding that problems arise when a second round of public comment is allowed at the court level. The department then becomes trapped when it is alleged that the department did not consider something that, in actuality, was never brought up. SENATOR SALO commented upon difficulties associated with a subjective decision as to whether something is or is not material. She then asked if pending legislation would impact Sale 78. Mr. Parker explained that, if enacted, SB 322 (Oil and Gas Lease Sales: Schedule and Delay) would allow the department to proceed with the sale as soon as the stay is lifted. Mr. Parker acknowledged that he did not know when that might occur. He further noted that the department has been in court, in some instances, up to seven years. Senator Salo next inquired about a potential settlement involving removal of key fishing tracts. JIM EASON, Director, Division of Oil and Gas, Dept. of Natural Resources, responded from Anchorage. He reiterated that allegations in Sale 78 are very broad. They include claims that the state failed to properly consider impacts and effects on "this fishing corridor" as well as archeological artifacts, view sheds, etc. There is nothing in the record to indicate that resolution of any one issue would have avoided litigation. That is particularly true in light of the diversity of interests of appellants. Further, to this date, no one has been able to specifically identify the fishing corridor. In response to a further question from Senator Salo, Mr. Eason acknowledged an offer of settlement presented by Trustees for Alaska. Appellants have requested that the offer remain confidential. The state rejected the offer. The state response is a matter of record. Mr. Eason advised of correspondence from Assistant Attorney General Mary Lundquist rejecting the offer and setting forth reasons for rejection. Mr. Eason agreed to provide copies of the correspondence (Attachment E) to committee. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:05 a.m.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|