Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/13/2012 09:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB362 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 362 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 13, 2012
9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Chair
Representative Neal Foster, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 362
"An Act relating to an Alaska Water and Sewer Task Force; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 362
SHORT TITLE: WATER AND SEWER TASK FORCE
SPONSOR(s): COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
03/02/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/02/12 (H) CRA, FIN
03/13/12 (H) CRA AT 9:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
PAUL LABOLLE, Staff
Representative Foster
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 362 on behalf of the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee, of which
Representative Foster is the vice chair.
BILL GRIFFITH, Facilities Program Manager
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 362, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:04:09 AM
CHAIR CATHY ENGSTROM MUNOZ called the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 9:04
a.m. Representatives Foster, Austerman, Saddler, Cissna,
Gardner, and Munoz were present at the call to order.
Representative Dick arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 362-WATER AND SEWER TASK FORCE
9:04:27 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 362, "An Act relating to an Alaska Water and
Sewer Task Force; and providing for an effective date."
9:04:37 AM
PAUL LABOLLE, Staff, Representative Foster, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee of which Representative
Foster is the vice chair, explained that HB 362 makes a
declaration of legislative findings and establishes a task force
to address those findings. Section 1 is the legislative
findings. Section 2 has three parts, including subsection (b)
that details the membership of the task force. In Section 2,
subsections (c)-(f) address the workings of the task force while
subsection (g) delineates the tasks assigned to the task force.
9:05:52 AM
MR. LABOLLE, in response to Representative Foster, reviewed the
membership of the nine-member task force as follows: one member
appointed by the House Bush caucus, one member appointed by the
Senate Bush caucus, one member appointed by the full membership
of the House, one member appointed by the full membership of the
Senate, a public member who is a civil engineer, one member
appointed by the Bush caucus who represents a federal agency -
ideally one that is involved with the funding of water and sewer
projects, one member appointed by the Bush caucus who represents
a state agency, two public members appointed by the Bush caucus
who live in rural communities that are off the road system or
the Alaska Marine Highway System. He noted that the Bush caucus
is defined on page 3, lines 22-23, of HB 362.
9:07:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if this proposed task force is stage
one, step one.
MR. LABOLLE stated that the idea behind this concept is to
proceed very fast. In fact, the task force will have less than
one year, essentially six months to do its work. The task force
is to report to the legislature by January 2013 and will have to
have the report completed by December 2012. Mr. LaBolle related
that the task force doesn't have to recreate the wheel as there
is much information it can utilize, such as previous legislative
audit reports and information from the Council on Rural
Sanitation under Governor Tony Knowles, DEC, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and the Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium (ANTHC).
9:08:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA informed the committee that the
Legislative Health Caucus held a forum entitled "Keeping it
Clean", the information from which she offered to make available
to the sponsor. She indicated that Troy Ritter's studies would
be helpful. Representative Cissna emphasized that although the
conditions in rural Alaska are absolutely shameful, the
conditions in the perimeters of communities, including
Anchorage, are shameful as well. She asked if any work has been
done on the perimeters of communities where there is unsafe
water.
MR. LABOLLE replied no, adding that the primary focus has been
to review rural areas. He highlighted that the answers to the
problems in rural Alaska versus the perimeters of [urban]
communities are different. For example, the economy of scale
issues aren't an issue for the perimeter of Anchorage nor is the
issue of access to an infrastructure that works. In Southwest
Alaska there is permafrost ground in which pipe can't be buried
nor is there infrastructure to access. Obtaining water when
there isn't a well that's readily available to drill means it
has to be obtained from the river, which has its own sanitation
and particulate issues that have to be addressed. The issues
with obtaining water from a river in a rural environment aren't
really the case in an urban environment. Furthermore, waste
disposal is a very different animal for a rural situation versus
the availability of tying into an urban grid.
9:11:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA referred to the Commonwealth North study
report entitled "Energy for a Sustainable Alaska", which ties
energy into sewer and water. Sanitation systems are linked to
energy because when energy systems fail so do the sanitation
systems, which was evidenced in her recent trip to the Yukon.
Representative Cissna stressed the need for step two to tie the
report of this proposed task force to a state energy plan.
MR. LABOLLE directed attention to the language on page 3, lines
16-18, which directs the task force to consult with the
appropriate state and federal agency representatives regarding
how safe water and sewer systems might be more quickly provided
to rural Alaska. The expectation is that combining [state]
water and sewer projects with other state and federal projects,
including energy, transportation, and school construction
projects, will afford [the state] the ability to do projects
faster, cheaper, and better. He noted that in rural Alaska the
largest single contract item is almost always mobilization and
demobilization. Therefore, combining state projects would
achieve economies of scale on that large ticket item.
9:13:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER echoed Representative Cissna's comments
regarding the scandalous situation that exists in many of
Alaska's rural communities, which she opined is unacceptable.
Although she said that she's generally not a fan of task forces,
in this case she said she was comforted by the list of resources
the proposed task force will use as well as the tight timelines.
She expressed concern that many members of the Bush caucus don't
represent the Bush, but since the proposed task force is short-
lived she said she wouldn't make it an issue.
9:14:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK related that he had legislation that
referred to the Bush caucus, which was of concern for some.
Although he couldn't imagine a body better equipped to identify
who would be an important member of the proposed task force, he
questioned whether there was any problem with the Bush caucus
making appointments.
MR. LABOLLE told the committee that he spoke with the primary
sponsor of the companion legislation in the Senate. There was
discussion regarding whether there would be a problem with the
Bush caucus appointing members to the task force. The [House]
is deferring to the Senate to take the lead on this legislation.
However, one problem that might be encountered with a directive
of a body is that a single individual isn't accountable.
Therefore, he suggested that perhaps the chair of the Bush
caucus should be responsible, and thus beholden to the members
to obtain a consensus. He said he is still working with the
Senate sponsor on the aforementioned.
9:16:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK acknowledged that there is a need for
prioritization as there isn't enough money to meet the need. In
the past, there have been some major boondoggles when facilities
were constructed out of proportion to the need. Therefore, he
opined that this proposed task force could help the state spend
its funds more wisely, prioritize, and realize that one size
doesn't fit all. He opined that only those really in touch with
the situation could establish the criteria. Representative Dick
said that he liked [HB 362].
9:17:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER requested that Mr. LaBolle discuss the
funding issues, in terms of the ever growing need versus the
expenditures and the available funding.
MR. LABOLLE stated that the funding issue has created the
existing situation rather than what's addressed by the task
force. Essentially there is a stated need of $650 million, but
state funding ranges from $8-$20 million over the last 15 years
and total funds $25-$70 million. He noted that there is a
funding breakdown for 1997-2011.
9:18:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to the source of the
information in the findings section that estimates that 6,028
families in Alaska don't have safe potable water or safe
sanitation systems in their homes.
MR. LABOLLE answered that the estimate was from Village Safe
Water within the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
and was provided by Bill Griffith via email.
9:19:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to page 1, lines 11-
12, which read: "it is the responsibility of the legislature to
ensure that safe and sustainable water and sewer systems are
provided for all state residents." He characterized the
aforementioned as a broad finding, and therefore he questioned
whether the state would bear 100 percent of the cost of
providing safe water and sewer systems if federal funding isn't
available.
MR. LABOLLE referred to Article VII, subsection 5 of the Alaska
Constitution, which read: "The legislature shall provide for
public welfare". Since water and sewer would fall within that,
the sponsor views it as a constitutional mandate.
9:20:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, referring to the quick timeline of the
task force, asked if the task force might be aiming toward any
particular conclusions.
MR. LABOLLE responded that essentially the discussions have been
that if there were answers, they would be implemented. The hope
is that the task force will reach some answers.
9:21:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if there is something the state
government, Village Safe Water, isn't doing now or lacks the
resources to do that the proposed task force could guide them to
do.
9:21:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER highlighted that safe water and sewer has
been an issue for decades. Therefore, he questioned whether the
task force might decide that permanent entity regarding rural
sanitation is necessary in addition to the Village Safe Water
program.
MR. LABOLLE said that if that's the wisdom of the legislature,
he didn't view it as a problem.
9:21:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if there is something the [Division
of Water] hasn't had the resources or direction to do that
necessitates the appointment of a separate task force to address
this issue. He further asked what the task force can do that
the division cannot.
9:22:10 AM
BILL GRIFFITH, Facilities Program Manager, Division of Water,
Department of Environmental Conservation, reminded the committee
that funding for rural water and sewer improvements has declined
by over 64 percent in the last seven years, which has had a
dramatic impact on the division's ability to provide services to
rural communities. He noted that although the Indian Health
Service provides funding for rural water and sewer improvements,
it hasn't increased either. While funding has decreased, the
cost of addressing critical health-related rural sanitation such
as homes without running water and flush toilets or inadequately
treated drinking water has increased by over 60 percent since
2006. He attributed that increase to a variety of factors,
including aging facilities and more stringent regulations. The
situation is a combination of declining funds, aging facilities,
increasing costs of construction, and increasing regulations.
Therefore, the gap, over $650 million, between available funding
and the cost to address these health-related sanitation needs is
growing exponentially. In fact, that gap has almost doubled
since state fiscal year 2006. The challenge is that the needs
are so great compared to the available funding that it's very
difficult to accomplish the necessary work. Mr. Griffith said,
"We're actually losing ground."
9:24:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to the time when the state
put forth its best effort [for water and sewer improvements].
MR. GRIFFITH recalled that the peak funding occurred in 2004,
and therefore he opined that the best funding years were the
years leading up to 2004 and the approximately five years after.
Whether the funding ever reaches that point again is primarily
dependent upon federal funding as 80-85 percent of all funding
for rural sanitation improvements has been from the federal
government over the last 20 years, unless the state decides to
contribute much more.
9:25:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA informed the committee that in about 2008
Legislative Research performed a study on safe water for her.
The study went into some of the political aspects of the issue,
which is one of the tragedies of it. She opined that it's easy
to forget what one can't see. She then offered to provide
members with a copy of the study, which she indicated remains
relevant today. She related hearing from residents of Western
Alaska who were part of a group put together by the Alaska
Native Tribal Health Consortium; this group consisted of areas
that were somewhat geographically close. The group was able to
decrease the costs because they were sharing water and sewage
infrastructure costs. The group she spoke with was planning on
leaving the bigger group as were a couple of other communities,
which jeopardized the entire group. She then asked if the
department tracks the aforementioned.
MR. LABOLLE surmised that Representative Cissna may be referring
to the Alaska Rural Utilities Cooperative (ARUC). He then
suggested that it could be the split responsibilities of the
ANTHC and Village Safe Water in terms of the construction of
systems. He noted that ARUC has more to do with the
administration of the systems, rather than construction, and aid
with Rural Utility Business Advisor Program (RUBA) reporting and
collections.
MR. GRIFFITH related that Representative Cissna is likely
referring to ARUC, which is a collaborative effort that is
sponsored by and continues to be run by ANTHC. The ARUC
includes about 20-25 communities in Southwest and Northwest
Alaska. Much is known about those communities and how things
are going. The division also tracks information about how
things are going in other communities. In fact, when the
division funds projects and throughout the construction of any
projects, it closely reviews how well the community is operating
and maintaining its existing facilities and what type of
assistance they may need with the aforementioned. The division
wants to ensure that communities are able to operate and
maintain the facilities they have as well as what's constructed
for it. The division also tries to provide the technical
assistance to communities to build their capacity. In further
response to Representative Cissna, Mr. Griffith said that the
division has provided assistance to a number of communities
through its remote worker maintenance program. The division
also works closely with ARUC to provide assistance to ARUC
communities as well as communities throughout the state. The
division doesn't have a website with this information, but could
pull together information regarding the communities that faced
weather-related challenges this winter.
9:32:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK, pointing out the desperate need for this
proposed task force, informed the committee that for thousands
of years the residents of Lime Village drank water from the
river, until about 14 years ago when the government determined
that the Native peoples shouldn't do so. At that point, a $25
million water building was constructed down by the river.
However, since the water didn't taste good, residents still
drank from the river and used the washing machines until they
broke down. Every so often, residents would move into the
building as it was well insulated. Eventually, there was a
significant high water event during the breakup and ice bumped
the building. The aforementioned resulted in the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) labeling [the water building]
as a contaminated well and flew in steamed, distilled water to
Lime Village. Still, the residents continued to drink river
water and used the steamed, distilled water to wash things such
as dishes and houses. In the meantime, a washateria was being
built in Lime Village for $1.7 million. However, it was built
on a well that pumps only five gallons a minute and was
completed one year prior to the school closing. There were only
17 people in Lime Village. He questioned how much it costs to
fly fuel oil into Lime Village to heat the washateria. However,
he stressed that the big problem was that the washateria had
three dryers and the community that generally drew 3-5 kilowatts
now had to run a 25-35 kilowatt generator just in case someone
might want to run all three dryers at the same time. Since it
costs $4 a load to run the dryers, no one uses them.
Representative Dick emphasized that this proposed task force is
desperately needed so that those who are on the ground and in
touch with what's happening are involved.
9:36:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed interest in comments regarding
the concern that water and sewer planning doesn't happen
concurrently with school districts, and thus there are overlaps,
gaps, and duplicate spending.
MR. LABOLLE reiterated that the language on page 3, lines 16-18,
addresses the aforementioned. He also reiterated the concern
that mobilization and demobilization costs the most, but [the
state] doesn't seem to package projects to share those costs and
obtain economies of scale for projects.
9:37:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER related that a year and a half ago he
visited the local Native corporation in Hooper Bay. The
building was a typical office building, save the bathrooms where
there were honey buckets lined with trash bags. In that same
timeframe, he also visited Kotlik where he was surprised to find
raw sewage disposal bins on the docks. He expressed concerns
with regard to people coming into contact with raw sewage and
the associated diseases, not to mention that when people don't
have piped water, they tend to conserve it and not wash their
hands as much and that results in increased illness. He noted
that he grew up with a honey bucket until he was age six or
seven.
MR. LABOLLE informed the committee that Hooper Bay is a
community with a population of about 1,200.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER interjected that Hooper Bay is actually
the second largest community in his district.
9:40:40 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ inquired as to the current process for evaluating
projects and how the department works with various organizations
to make funding recommendations.
MR. GRIFFITH explained that currently funding is available
through two allocation processes. One is a federal process that
is a national allocation system administered by the Indian
Health Service. The other process is used to allocate funding
in Alaska through the Village Safe Water program. A number of
years ago there was an effort to bring these two allocation
systems into alignment in order that communities wouldn't have
to submit requests through both systems. Therefore, the
requests have occurred concurrently every summer. The division
compiles a list of water and sewer needs in every community and
that database is updated annually. Communities have the
opportunity to identify those projects that are a priority for
them and for which they want to request state funding. All
projects in the database are automatically considered for
funding by the Indian Health Service. The only thing that
communities have to do with regard to the Village Safe Water
program is let the division know for which projects they want to
request funding. The list of projects is scored using a
prioritization system. The two sets of criteria for the Indian
Health Service and the Village Safe Water program are very
similar. The division primarily reviews the health impact of
the project, which ensures the prioritization of projects that
will provide running water and sewer for the first time in a
village over a project to provide additional water storage or
upgrade the filtration system. Still, projects to provide
additional water storage or bring systems to regulatory
compliance would be funded over other projects, such as a
project to make a system more efficient, because they have a
greater health impact. The division also reviews a community's
ability to operate and maintain their current system. He noted
that the division reviews a few other things, such as whether
there are other ongoing projects as it's very expensive and
inefficient to start and stop a project.
9:44:06 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ asked if the earlier mentioned $18 million in state
and federal funding is an annual amount and whether that's all
that's expected to meet the $650 million in unmet need.
MR. GRIFFITH clarified that the current gap between available
funding and need is about $667 million while the total need is
about $700 million. This year, through the state the department
will allocate $35 million in state and federal funds. As
mentioned earlier, there is approximately another $20-$25
million that will be made available through the Indian Health
Service.
9:45:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked if the problem in some locations
is that the technology isn't available to construct water and
sewer projects.
MR. GRIFFITH said that the division has approached the challenge
of rural water and sewer services for many years by reviewing
the most appropriate technology for each community. The optimal
system is an individual well and septic system. However,
individual well and septic systems aren't always possible and
thus the primary system used otherwise is a centralized pipe
system with a centralized water plant that pipes water to homes,
collects [waste] with pipes, and disposes of it in a sewage
lagoon. The division is discovering that such approaches are
increasingly expensive to implement and the lack of funding may
result in the inability to provide service to everyone and keep
it running. Currently, the division is trying to implement a
major initiative to develop other approaches that address water
and sewer needs. The division is considering innovative
technological approaches throughout the state, and thus the
governor's current budget includes a $1 million request to start
that effort. Mr. Griffith informed the committee that there
have been discussions with the university and the Cold Climate
Research Center in Fairbanks regarding how to collaborate to
review new technological approaches. Although there won't be an
end to providing centralized services, the division wants to
review innovative decentralized approaches in communities where
it would be very expensive to provide a centralized system.
9:48:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed concern with the lack of
interdepartmental work, which results in students learning
things that don't have to do with their local energy, water, and
sanitation systems and how to operate and maintain them. She
then emphasized that prices will always continue to increase and
the [state] doesn't work toward sustainability. She asked if
the division has discussed systems that can be maintained by
residents in the area that have been there for thousands of
years and didn't pollute the area. One aspect of this issue,
she opined, is with regard to how to [educate] locals in the
skill sets necessary to operate these systems. The
aforementioned would keep costs down while creating jobs.
MR. GRIFFITH confirmed that the division frequently discusses
the need to maintain these systems affordably and for the
residents to be able to do so. He informed the committee that
currently there is no subsidy funding available for water and
sewer systems in Alaska. Therefore, communities are left to
raise the funds to maintain these systems through local user
fees. He further informed the committee that almost always its
people from the community that run the systems, provide the
utility management, and operations. He noted that there are a
number of technical assistants providing programs around the
state and through the ANTHC that train operators and
administrators and provide technical assistance. Mr. Griffith
agreed that it's a critical piece of planning of any system and
something the division tries to spend a lot of time on
throughout the course of the project.
9:51:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to a November 2011 email from
Mr. Griffith to Dorothy Shockley that says regarding the total
number of unserved homes: "This number also includes homes that
are considered "unserviceable" because of their remote location,
or excessively high capital/operational costs associated with
service". He asked if there are some locations that will never
be able to receive decent sanitation and water services.
MR. GRIFFITH answered that there are homes located a distance
away from the community center and it's not economical to run
pipes that far for a few homes. To try to serve every isolated
home in a community becomes an operational burden, he said.
Furthermore, there are also very small communities for which a
central water plant with circulated heated water to a few homes
costs a lot to build and maintain. The division, he related,
has worked with a lot of communities that have reviewed the
projected costs of such a system in terms of the cost per home.
The conclusion has been that it's not something [small
communities] can afford to operate. Given the current slate of
typical technologies, there are homes for which it's not
affordable to try to serve. The aforementioned, he opined,
speaks to the need to try to develop new approaches and bring
technologies together that may be available but hasn't been
considered in combinations that may be workable in rural Alaska.
9:53:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER commented that while HB 362 does include
provisions [on page 3, lines 12-13] that the task force study
ways to build, install, and maintain [water and sanitation
systems in rural Alaska]. He expressed the need to place a
sharper focus on maintenance to ensure that research is
identified as well as to ensure that whatever investments are
identified for this need are protected such that it can be
maintained in order to avoid another wholesale investment in the
future. He expressed the need to place a sharper focus on
sustainability.
9:54:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK told the committee that this wasn't a
problem in the past because people weren't in the village
consistently due to the need to leave to hunt, trap, and such.
He said that the real reason for spring camp was to let the
village dry out because during the time when there were dog
teams the sanitation issues were worse than now. When residents
returned from spring camp to the village, the land was dry and
residents racked and burned their yard. The problem, he said,
is a direct result of mandatory school in the villages that
resulted in residents staying in the village consistently.
9:56:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER nominated Representative Dick to serve on
the proposed task force.
9:57:08 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that HB 362 would be held over.
9:57:22 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:57 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB362 State Funding Rural Water Sewer Projects.pdf |
HCRA 3/13/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 362 |
| HB 362 VSW and MMG Funding History.pdf |
HCRA 3/13/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 362 |
| HB362 Petroleum Revenue 1977-09.pdf |
HCRA 3/13/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 362 |
| HB362 Teller response to Sen Kookesh Feb 2012.msg |
HCRA 3/13/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 362 |
| HB362 Mtn Village to DEC-River Pump.msg |
HCRA 3/13/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 362 |
| HB362 DEC State Fed Funding Info.msg |
HCRA 3/13/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 362 |
| HB362 Sen Kookesh letter Nov 2011.docx |
HCRA 3/13/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 362 |