Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
03/14/2013 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB131 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 14, 2013
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Co-Chair
Representative Benjamin Nageak, Co-Chair
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Lora Reinbold
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Harriet Drummond
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 131
"An Act relating to abandoned and derelict vessels."
- MOVED HB 131 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 131
SHORT TITLE: ABANDONED AND DERELICT VESSELS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
02/20/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/13 (H) CRA, TRA
03/14/13 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 131.
MICHAEL LUKSHIN, Statewide Ports and Harbors Engineer
Division of Statewide Design and Engineering Services
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 131.
WYN MENEFEE, Chief of Operations
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Regarding HB 131, testified that it's good
to have the extra authority.
JOY BAKER, Harbormaster
Port of Nome
City of Nome
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 131.
STEVE CORPORON, Director
Ketchikan Port and Harbors
City of Ketchikan;
President, Alaska Association of Harbormasters and Port
Administrators
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 131.
RACHEL LORD, Coordinator
Alaska Clean Harbors Program;
Outreach & Monitoring Coordinator, Cook Inletkeeper
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 131.
BRYAN HAWKINS, Director/Harbormaster
City of Homer
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 131.
CARL UCHYTIL, Vice President
Alaska Association of Harbormasters and Port Administrators
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 131.
LARRY DIETRICK
Spill Prevention and Response
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 131, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:07:29 AM
CO-CHAIR BENJAMIN NAGEAK called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:07 a.m.
Representatives Herron, Olson, LeDoux, and Nageak were present
at the call to order. Representative Reinbold arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 131-ABANDONED AND DERELICT VESSELS
8:08:51 AM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 131, "An Act relating to abandoned and
derelict vessels."
8:09:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the
sponsor, explained that HB 131 addresses derelict vessels, which
has long been a problem in the state. The problem has recently
come to the forefront due to sinking vessels in Jakolof Bay and
a costly response to remove derelict vessels anchored in state
waters. The legislation is primarily based on language provided
by the Alaska Association of Harbormasters and Port
Administrators, which has been working for some time to solve
this problem. Derelict vessels are a costly and growing problem
across the state that has been accentuated by consolidation of
fisheries in the 1990s, which resulted in some of the larger
vessels that could no longer participate in the fisheries aging
in the harbors, being sold to individuals with less financial
ability, and used as house boats. There have also been a lot of
smaller vessels that have been abandoned. Those vessels
abandoned in harbors take up moorage space and ultimately become
a problem for the municipality. For example, it took several
years to get through all the paperwork to address a large vessel
that sank in Cordova Harbor. Furthermore, once a vessel is
abandoned, there is no entity to pay for it. He then turned to
the situation in Jakolof Bay in which vessels were [evicted]
from a harbor and turned down for entrance into the Homer harbor
due to the condition of the vessels. Ultimately, the vessels
were anchored in state waters where they sank during the winter.
Due to leaking fuel, the U.S. Coast Guard launched a response to
raise the vessels at a cost of $25 million. As soon as the
vessels were raised they became the concern of the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF). He explained that
although most harbors, which were originally owned by the state
and operated by DOT&PF, have been transferred to municipalities.
The authority for dealing with those vessels remains with DOT&PF
while the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is responsible
for those vessels that sink within the three miles of state
waters. Therefore, transfer of authority between agencies has
been problematic. This legislation allows for a multi-agency
approach to address abandoned and derelict vessels and replaces
the department with a state agency, which includes a
municipality. Representative Seaton specified that the
abandoned and derelict vessel statute is a framework for dealing
with such vessels and clearly lays out the procedures that state
agencies and municipalities can utilize to address abandoned and
derelict vessels.
8:14:16 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that HB 131 basically adds
municipalities as a place one can't abandon vessels.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON acknowledged that is one of the things
HB 131 does. The legislation also specifies that a vessel that
has been turned down from entrance into a harbor because of its
derelict condition can't be stored in state waters for over 14
days without removing the hazardous waste and bulk fuel on
board. The latter condition of HB 131 avoids an emergency
response and all it entails, such as was the case with the
Jakolof Bay incident. In further response to Co-Chair LeDoux,
Representative Seaton said that although the federal maritime
law exists, the harbormasters don't believe that just because a
vessel is documented that it limits their authority. Although
current statute specifies that DOT&PF has authority over
derelict vessels in state waters, DNR has the responsibility to
maintain state waters and lands. Therefore, one agency has the
responsibility and another agency has the authority to deal with
the situation. Currently, there is no clear authority to
address abandoned/derelict vessels within a municipality and it
is left to DOT&PF. This legislation clarifies that those who
have the responsibility also have the authority to address the
problem.
8:17:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if there was consideration of
expanding [the authority to address abandoned and derelict
vessels] to include political subdivisions with side boards.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that HB 131 expands the
authority to municipalities, police officers, or state agencies
and therefore it covers subdivisions of state agencies as well.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON then inquired as to why it's limited to
state agencies and municipalities and doesn't include other
political subdivisions that want to take on the disposal of an
abandoned/derelict vessel.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that a peace officer, for
which there is a fairly broad definition, is included. He
related that he hasn't been contacted by any other local
authority with control over a harbor that couldn't employee a
police officer or a state agency to have the authority.
8:20:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired as to what entity pays for the
removal of any derelict vessel that isn't hazardous.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON highlighted that HB 131 deals with state
lands and waters. Private land owners have separate authority
to deal with their property and waters. The municipal section
does include a provision for disposal of a derelict vessel with
an appraisal less than $100 such that there only has to be
notice to the last owner of record or if there is no known last
owner of record, notice in the paper. Representative Seaton
noted that no fund is created to address abandoned/derelict
vessels, rather authority is being provided to the agencies with
the responsibility.
8:22:16 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether there are any communities that may
not fall under the definition of municipality, but are entitled
to revenue sharing funds and would want to have the ability to
address abandoned vessels.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he hasn't been contacted by
anyone/entity with a harbor that isn't private land. He
indicated that villages with village land have the authority and
ability to address [abandoned/derelict vessels] on private land.
This legislation deals with state waters and allows a peace
officer, which has a broad definition, to address this issue.
8:24:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON then paraphrased from the sectional
analysis, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1. AS 30.30.010(a)
A person may not store a derelict vessel, or abandon a
vessel in:
• The waters of the state
• A state or municipal port
• Private property without consent
Sec. 2. AS 30.30.010(b)
A hazardous derelict vessel may be removed from state
waters by:
• A state agency
• A municipality
• A peace officer
Sec. 3. AS 30.30.010(e)
If a vessel is denied entrance to a harbor, all of the
following materials must be removed before it is
stored in state waters for more than 14 consecutive
days:
• Hazardous materials
• Petroleum products
Sec. 4. AS 30.30.020
A vessel left unattended for more than 30 consecutive
days on state or private property without consent may
be removed and disposed of by:
• A state agency
• A municipality
• A peace officer
Sec. 5. AS 30.30.030
Outside of organized municipalities, a vessel may be
left unattended for more than 30 consecutive days if
it is considered an accepted local practice.
Sec. 6. AS 30.30.040
Upon taking a vessel into custody, the municipality,
or state agency must attempt to notify the owners on
record of their custody 20 days prior to repossession
of the vessel.
Sec. 7. AS 30.30.060
A person or interested party may take possession of
the boat before the public auction date if they pay
all the fees associated with the vessel.
If they are not the registered owner, they must post
adequate security.
Sec. 8. AS 30.30.070
A public auction for a repossessed vessel is not
needed if it is appraised at less than $100. Upon
determination that the value of the vessel is less
than $100 and following advertisement in a newspaper
of general circulation the state agency or
municipality may sell the vessel by negotiation,
dispose of it, or donate it to a government agency.
Sec. 9. AS 30.30.080
A bill of sale is required for any transfers under
this legislation.
8:28:50 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX related her understanding that a documented
vessel required a federal document other than a bill of sale.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that it's a marine bill of sale
for a federal documented vessel.
8:29:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON continued paraphrasing from the sectional
analysis, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 10. AS 30.30.090
A vessel is considered derelict if it is left
unattended for 24 consecutive hours under the
following conditions:
• Is sunk, sinking, or posing a threat, or has been
moored or left in the waters of the state illegally
with no current registration and the owner cannot be
determined.
Sec. 11. AS 30.30.100(a)
When a municipality, state agency, or peace officer
takes possession of a derelict, they must:
• Publish notice of intended disposition
• Post notice of intended disposition
• Serve the registered owners, if known, and
financiers with the notice
Sec. 12. AS 30.30.120
A vessel at a repair business is considered abandoned
if the following conditions have been met:
• The vessel has been towed and requested repairs have
been preformed
• No authorization for further service is given
• The state agency or municipality and the owner are
notified
• The vessel is not claimed 30 days after the notice
Sec. 13. AS 30.30.170
Definitions:
• Municipality - as currently defined
• State Agency - executive branch department or agency
• Vessel - water transportation device that is not a
float plane
• Waters of the state - navigable waters within three
mile limit
Sec. 14. AS 30.30.160
Repeal of specific DOT&PF regulation authority to
implement the abandoned and derelict vessel statute as
the bill broadens the authority for abandoned and
derelict vessels to include the other state agencies.
8:32:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD thanked the sponsor for introducing
HB 131 as it's important legislation.
8:32:59 AM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK opened public testimony for HB 131.
8:33:06 AM
MICHAEL LUKSHIN, Statewide Ports and Harbors Engineer, Division
of Statewide Design and Engineering Services, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities, related support for HB 131.
He explained that existing statute, AS 30.30, was created in
1975 when the Department of Public Works built harbors for the
state. At one point, 100 harbors were owned by the Department
of Public Works. In 1980, the Department of Public Works merged
with the Department of Public Highways to form and transfer
authorities to DOT&PF. Since the 1980s DOT&PF has been asked to
divest and transfer as many harbors as possible to local
control. At this point, about 76 harbors have been transferred
to municipalities under AS 35.10.120, which allows transfer of
harbors only to municipalities. The aforementioned may be why
AS 30.30 was originally crafted to only [provide oversight from
DOT&PF]. Therefore, passage of HB 131 would broaden the
authority that is currently limited to DOT&PF, which doesn't
have funds or personnel to respond to derelict and abandoned
vessels. With Alaska's 33,000 miles of coastline, it's very
challenging for those public waters and harbors that may be in
local control.
8:36:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether there is any plan to clean
up the debris from the disaster in Japan that is reaching
Alaska's coastline.
MR. LUKSHIN replied no, but added that National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has a federal program through
its marine debris removal plan that may allow them to respond.
8:37:13 AM
WYN MENEFEE, Chief of Operations, Division of Mining, Land and
Water, Department of Natural Resources, opined that the proposal
in HB 131 to broaden the authority to allow DNR and others to
utilize it when necessary is good. As the sponsor related, the
legislation doesn't mandate the removal of vessels or create a
fund for doing so, rather it merely provides another tool to
address abandoned and derelict vessels on state land. In
response to Co-Chair Nageak, Mr. Menefee confirmed that HB 131
doesn't cause [DNR] any concern as it merely provides authority
that it doesn't currently have. For instance, in the Jakolof
Bay situation DNR had to obtain delegated authority from DOT&PF
to deal with the two vessels that sank in Jakolof Bay. The
department is still dealing with that issue as it deals with
disposal of the vessels.
8:39:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether there are any plans or
need of authority to address the debris from Japan on Alaska's
coastline.
MR. MENEFEE related that the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) is the lead on the cleanup efforts with the
state. However, DNR is also part of the work task force and is
working with NOAA. There is an increase in the amount of debris
on state lands as well as others. Japan gave the federal
government a certain amount of funding, which NOAA is trying to
apply to this issue. The first thing NOAA did was to map where
the debris comes ashore. Most of the cleanup is, rather than a
matter of funding, a matter of coordination with various groups
that are cleaning up specific beaches and ensuring they have the
necessary authorizations for things such as the use of heavy
equipment on the beaches. Mr. Menefee said that one has to be
cognizant of the fact that it isn't possible to clean all the
beaches, and therefore it's a matter of prioritization of sites.
8:41:51 AM
JOY BAKER, Harbormaster, Port of Nome, City of Nome, related
that although the Port of Nome hasn't been transferred to the
municipality, it is supportive of HB 131 as it has had to deal
with many abandoned/derelict vessels. She mentioned the expense
of disposal of abandoned/derelict vessels.
8:43:42 AM
STEVE CORPORON, Director, Ketchikan Port and Harbors, City of
Ketchikan; President, Alaska Association of Harbormasters and
Port Administrators, began by informing the committee that the
City of Ketchikan has taken authority over its harbors. The
city code provides impound authority and control over abandoned
and derelict vessels, the issue is that authority doesn't extend
very far from the harbor. Therefore, the derelict vessels tend
to run away from the city and move into the borough and state
waters where they become an issue. The key is to provide the
authority to the other areas in order that they can take action
prior to any vessel sinking because the financial and
environmental impacts are higher once they sink. These vessels
are much easier to deal with when they are floating.
8:45:51 AM
RACHEL LORD, Coordinator, Alaska Clean Harbors Program; Outreach
& Monitoring Coordinator, Cook Inletkeeper, explained that the
Alaska Clean Harbors Program is a voluntary statewide program
that works with harbormasters to improve resources and tools for
waste management, pollution prevention, and customer service
activities. She related support from the Alaska Clean Harbors
Program for HB 131, which she characterized as a strong step to
improve the ability of municipalities and state agencies to
effectively deal with the abandoned/derelict vessels along the
state's vast coastline. Many coastal municipalities lack the
legal framework within their codes to navigate maritime law to
effectively deal with these vessels. She encouraged Alaska to
look to Washington State on this issue as it has spent millions
dealing with abandoned/derelict vessels on its coast. Alaska
has enjoyed a relatively young fleet of actively working
vessels, but increasingly this isn't the case as the fleet has
aged. In the not so distant future, she predicted more derelict
vessels in Alaska in the state's municipal harbors as well as
the state's coastline. In conclusion, Ms. Lord reiterated
Alaska Clean Harbors Program's support for HB 131.
8:47:35 AM
BRYAN HAWKINS, Director/Harbormaster, City of Homer, began by
relating support for HB 131, which he characterized as a good
step forward. This legislation, he opined, enables good
communication between the state and cities. One of the key
components of addressing this issue is recognizing the problem
early and having the authority to act on it before there is a
major incident. Referring to earlier questions, Mr. Hawkins
informed the committee that as the City of Homer harbormaster he
has police powers in [the city] code, which is the case for many
other harbormasters as well.
8:49:28 AM
CARL UCHYTIL, Vice President, Alaska Association of
Harbormasters and Port Administrators, began by noting that
although he is the port director for the City and Borough of
Juneau, he is testifying today in his capacity as the vice
president of the Alaska Association of Harbormasters and Port
Administrators. He provided the following testimony:
The Alaska Association of Harbormasters and Port
Administrators (AAHPA) in our resolution 2012-02
strongly urges support of the proposed changes to
chapter 30.30 for abandoned and derelict vessels.
AAHPA believes delegation of authority under state
statutes to local municipalities is a step in the
right direction in turning the tide of abandoned and
derelict vessels in the state. The condition of
vessels operating in the state waters of Alaska is
diverse, from modern yachts and well-maintained 80-
year-old wooden trawlers to relatively new but
decrepit live aboards to turn of the century abandoned
tug boats; we see them all. The harbormaster is
consistently looking for tools to help best manage his
harbor facility while keeping a vigilant eye on
vessels [that] encroach on tidelands which they may or
may not have authority to act upon. This proposed
authority is necessary throughout the state,
especially in smaller coastal communities and ...
communities up the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers where
legal enforcement resources are not readily available
to deal with the liabilities and hazards of abandoned
and derelict vessels. The construction and operation
of harbors by the Alaska Department of Transportation
[& Public Facilities] shortly after statehood resulted
in regulations which empowered only [DOT&PF] to
effectively deal with troublesome vessels. Expanding
the language to include not only [DOT&PF] but other
state agencies and municipalities would appear to be
sound legislation. The proposed delegation of
authority to the local municipality will help to
refine the relationship between state and city/borough
responsibilities and will enable harbormasters and
communities with limited legal resources or limited
local ordinances to act with confidence in prosecuting
derelict and abandoned vessels. The modifications to
chapter 30.30 appear to have in place sufficient
authority, which encourages the state or municipality
to act in a timely manner and before the vessel is in
extremus. This is important because the disposal cost
associated with a vessel that is afloat is a small
fraction of what it costs once a vessel takes on
water, is submerged, or discharges fuel or oil. The
Alaska Association of Harbormasters and Port
Administrators thank you for your consideration of
this important issue to the Alaska coastal
communities.
8:53:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD inquired as to the plan for cleaning
Alaska's shoreline from the debris from Japan's disaster.
8:53:42 AM
LARRY DIETRICK, Spill Prevention and Response, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), explained that the governor
issued an administrative order that created a work group within
state government to oversee the cleanup. As has been mentioned,
DEC was made the lead agency per the administrative order.
Since the project manager for that project is in another
division, he offered to arrange a detailed briefing if the
committee so desires. He noted that there is quite a bit of
activity going on now, including funding and prioritization of
shorelines.
8:54:41 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX remarked that a presentation on that would be a
good idea.
8:54:54 AM
MR. DIETRICK offered to provide a briefing in the committee
setting or individually, whichever is preferred.
8:55:13 AM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK closed public testimony.
8:55:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in closing, related appreciation for the
hearing and for the committee's support of the legislation.
8:56:28 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX moved to report HB 131 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
8:56:56 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 8:56 a.m.