Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/11/1998 01:40 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 11, 1998
1:40 P.M.
TAPE HFC 98 - 64, Side 1
TAPE HFC 98 - 64, Side 2
TAPE HFC 98 - 65, Side 1
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Gene Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:40 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring
Representative Davies Representative Martin
Representative Davis Representative Moses
Representative Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Grussendorf
Representative Kelly
Co-Chair Hanley was absent from the vote.
ALSO PRESENT
Diane Mayer, Director, Governmental Coordination, Office of
the Governor; Kevin Ritchie, Executive Director, Alaska
Municipal League; Berne Miller, Executive Director,
Southeast Conference; Joe Geldhof, Attorney; Murray Walsh,
Alaska Chapter, American Planning Association.
The following testified via the teleconference network:
James Welch, Deputy Chief, Fairbanks Police Department,
Fairbanks; Chuck Degnan, Program Director, Bering Straits
Coastal Resource Service Area, Unalakleet; Gabrial Laroche,
WA DC; John Easton, Coastal Coordinator, Bristol Bay Coastal
Resource Service Area, Dillingham; Bob Shavelson, Executive
Director, Cook Inlet Keepers, Homer; Linda Freed, Kodiak
Island Borough, Kodiak; Thomas Sparks, Bering Straits Native
Corporation, Nome; Robert Fagerstrom, City of Nome, Nome;
Patrick Galvin, Attorney, Anchorage; Dale Bondurant, Kenai;
Linda Wright, Kenai;
SUMMARY
HB 12 "An Act relating to civil liability for injuries
or death resulting from equine activities."
HB 12 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 28 "An Act repealing the Alaska Coastal Management
Program and the Alaska Coastal Policy Council, and
making conforming amendments because of those
repeals."
HB 28 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 144 "An Act authorizing the Department of
Environmental Conservation to charge certain fees
relating to registration of pesticides and
broadcast chemicals; and providing for an
effective date."
HB 144 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 261 "An Act relating to a surcharge imposed for
violations of state or municipal law and to the
Alaska police training fund."
CSHB 261 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with two fiscal
impact notes, one by the Department of Public
Safety, Alaska Police Standards Council and one by
the Alaska Court System; and two zero fiscal
notes, one by the Department of Public Safety and
one by the Department of Administration, dated
3/4/98.
HOUSE BILL NO. 12
"An Act relating to civil liability for injuries or
death resulting from equine activities."
Representative Davis, Sponsor, spoke in support of HB 12.
House Bill 12 is intended to provide owners and handlers in
the equine profession extra protection from civil liability
lawsuits. Representative Davis maintained that the ability
to get insurance restricts the activities of persons that
own and handle horses. The legislation would reduce civil
liability based on inherent risk. He stressed that horses
are unpredictable. He observed that negligence would not be
exempted.
Representative Davies questioned if an event precipitated
the legislation. Representative Davis recalled that
testimony indicated that events have been cancelled due to a
lack or high cost of insurance to cover the activity.
In response to a question by Representative Davies,
Representative Davis recounted that insurance companies have
told owners that the legislation would result in reductions.
Representative Grussendorf observed that a hiny is a cross
between a female mule and a horse.
Representative Davies suggested inserting a semicolon on
page 1, line 13 after the second "or". He observed that
"tack" would be included in "defective equipment" on page 2,
line 7. He recommended that "tack" be deleted. He
suggested the addition of "or" at the end of page 2, line
12.
HB 12 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 261
"An Act relating to a surcharge imposed for violations
of state or municipal law and to the Alaska police
training fund."
Representative Davis provided members with Amendment 3 (copy
on file). Co-Chair Therriault noted that Amendment 3
incorporates Amendment 2, which was offered on 3/9/98.
Representative Davis MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3. Amendment
3 clarifies that misdemeanors, which carry a small fine and
no jail time would be included with infractions. Co-Chair
Therriault noted that "misdemeanor or" would be added on
page 2, line 28 and page 3, line 1. "Or a misdemeanor"
would be added on page 2, line 28. The amendment also
provides that fines or bail forfeitures of $30 dollars or
more would have a $15 dollar surcharge. If the fine or bail
forfeiture is less than $30 dollars the surcharge would be
$5 dollars.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the Alaska Court System
submitted a new fiscal note for a onetime $5 thousand dollar
appropriation. The Alaska Police Standards Council
submitted a new fiscal note, which deletes the prior year
carryover.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 261 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Kohring OBJECTED. He spoke against
increasing fees. He acknowledged the importance of
supporting public safety. He asserted that the surcharge is
the same as a tax.
JAMES WELCH, DEPUTY CHIEF, FAIRBANKS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
FAIRBANKS stressed the need for well-trained police officers
and state troopers. He observed that a surcharge is the
only mechanism available to provide the high level of
training required for police officers throughout the state.
He noted that the Fairbanks police force is half of its
optimum size. He stressed that the burden would be placed
on the person who uses the criminal justice system. The
legislation is needed to meet today's training needs and the
training needs of the next five years. A training center is
being developed for Interior Alaska. He emphasized the need
to support this effort.
Representative Davies observed that it is not inappropriate
for those that are causing the problem to provide support.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to move CSHB 261
(FIN) from Committee.
IN FAVOR: Moses, Davies, Davis, Grussendorf, Foster, Kelly,
Therriault
OPPOSED: Kohring
Co-Chair Hanley and Representatives Martin and Mulder were
absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-1).
Representative Kelly noted that it is better to tax the
individual, who because of their drunkenness has been
arrested, then to tax the industry. He saw the legislation
as a user fee, not a tax.
CSHB 261 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with two fiscal impact notes, one
by the Department of Public Safety, Alaska Police Standards
Council and one by the Alaska Court System; and two zero
fiscal notes, one by the Department of Public Safety and one
by the Department of Administration, dated 3/4/98.
HOUSE BILL NO. 28
"An Act repealing the Alaska Coastal Management Program
and the Alaska Coastal Policy Council, and making
conforming amendments because of those repeals."
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with a proposed
committee substitute for HB 28, Work Draft 0-LS0189\L, dated
3/11/98 (copy on file). Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT
Work Draft 0-LS0189\L, dated 3/11/98. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Therriault reviewed the committee substitute. He
noted that CSHB 28(FIN):
? Prohibits a coastal resource district from incorporating
statutes and regulations into their statements of
policies and regulations.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the Administration supports
this section. Coastal resource service areas (CRSA) could
not adopt state regulations and statutes by reference. He
emphasized that coastal resource area plans should add to
existing statutes and regulations.
? Prohibits a state agency or coastal resource district
from stipulating to a matter or subject for which the
agency or district may not by law outside of this chapter
exercise authority.
Co-Chair Therriault stressed that state agencies should not
try to increase statutory authority by adding to broadly
worded statutes.
? Prohibits an agency from accepting a stipulation as part
of the consistency determination if it violates this
policy.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that the Department of Fish and
Game would not be able to put a stipulation on a proposed
permit, unless they have specific statutory authority to
regulate the thing that they are stipulating.
? Allows state agencies and coastal districts to stipulate
to federal projects and allow a CRSA to stipulate to a
matter under authority of AS 46.40. This is a change
from CSHB 28 (RES).
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that CRSA's would be allowed
to stipulate on federal projects that only require a federal
permit.
? Prohibits a requirement for a consistency determination
outside of the area subject to a coastal management
program. This is a change from CSHB 28 (RES).
Co-Chair Therriault referred to a newspaper article relating
to a permit for a trapper's cabin outside of the coastal
zone (copy on file). The permit was declared inconsistent
with the local coastal management zone and was denied. This
provision would "cut off the ability to reach outside of the
stated coastal zone, and impact those permits."
In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Co-Chair
Therriault explained that coastal resource areas are
empowered to make comments on proposed projects that fall
within their zone. Projects are determined to be consistent
with their set of regulations. As state or federal agencies
are considering a project, the coastal resource management
area also makes a determination on consistency with what
they want to allow in their coastal zone area. A
stipulation can be applied to the issuance of a permit,
requiring that certain things be done. If certain things
are done then they agree with the letting of the permit.
? Prohibits from 10 miles landward of the mean high tide
line to a district boundary a consistency determination
unless a water use or discharge authorization is required
for the use or activity in that area. This is a change
from CSHB 28 (RES). CSHB 28 (RES) allowed for a
consistency determination based upon the uses or
activities that would affect fish habitat.
Co-Chair Therriault demonstrated that concerns regarding
anadromous streams have resulted in coastal resource service
areas moving inland. He maintained that legitimate concerns
would probably be something that would require a water use
or discharge permit. This provision would restrict the
consistency determination to activities that require a water
use or water discharge permit. He observed that in addition
to the consistency determination any proposed forestry
activity would have to live within the bounds of the Forest
Practices Act.
? Eliminates the petition process to the Coastal Policy
Council.
Co-Chair Therriault maintained that this provision would
eliminate duplication within state agencies. He felt that
the tendency to abuse the petition process has grown.
? A municipality or CRSA that has an approved coastal plan
has one year to comply with the changes. Allows the
Coastal Policy Council (CPC) to modify plans that are out
of compliance with statutory changes.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that in addition to
provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act, AS 46.40,
projects are subject to requirements under:
? Title 38, land use permits;
? Title 16, Department of Fish and Game permits for
activities in anadromous streams;
? Permit requirements for the Department of Environmental
Conservation under AS 46; and
? The Forest Practices Act under Title 41.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that the legislation does not
impact requirements of the above permits.
Representative Davies disagreed. He stressed that the
Coastal Management Program provides coordination for all
other state permits. He maintained that the legislation
would reduce coordination and increase the burden of
applying for other permits.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that HB 28 would have repealed
the whole program. He acknowledged the coordination
function of the program.
Representative Davies expressed concern with the elimination
of the petition process. He estimated that the result would
not be less petitions but more litigation. He did not think
the petition process had been abused.
Representative Davies maintained that issuance of a
consistency determination outside the area subject to a
coastal management program is one of the key functions of
the existing federal law. He expressed concern that federal
support would be jeopardized by the elimination of this
provision.
Representative Davies expressed concern with the prohibition
against a state agency or coastal resource district
stipulating to a matter or subject for which the agency or
district may not exercise authority.
In response to a question by Representative Kelly,
Representative Davies explained that federal projects are
required to be consistent with local coastal management
plans. Federal funding supports the process.
Co-Chair Therriault stressed that he has been sensitive to
capturing federal funds. He noted that the program provides
a zoning and planning function in areas were there is no
municipal government.
Co-Chair Therriault requested a written explanation of the
Division of Governmental Coordination's concerns.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that three boundary areas were
proposed for consideration by the House Resource Committee;
the zone of direct interaction (tide area), the zone of
direct influence (wetlands), and the zone of indirect
influence. The zone of indirect influence was proposed for
deletion. Testimony indicated that the deletion would
impact 11 of the 35 coastal areas and cost approximately $1
million dollars to redraw maps. The 10-mile cutoff was
offered as an alternative to this plan. He stated that
concessions would be given to protect anadromous fish
streams. He emphasized that the coastal zone program should
not be used to prevent trapper cabins.
(Due to technical failure approximately 15 minutes of the
meeting was not recorded. Minutes were composed from the
secretary's handwritten notes and written testimony.)
JOHN EASTON, COASTAL COORDINATOR, BRISTOL BAY COASTAL
RESOURCE SERVICE AREA (BBCRSA), DILLINGHAM testified in
opposition to HB 28. He stressed that the changes to the
Alaska Coastal Management Program would not improve a
lengthy permitting process. He emphasized that fish
resources depend on the ability to reflect local concerns.
He noted that local communities have different concerns that
they want incorporated into development plans. He pointed
out that BBCRSA does not have a track record of impeding
development. He expressed concern with the 10-mile boundary
cutoff. He observed that a 10-mile boundary would exclude
most of the Nushagak Mulchatna Rivers Recreation Management
Plan that was created in conjunction with the Department of
Natural Resources.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that anything requiring a water
use permit would be within the scope of the legislation.
BOB SHAVELSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COOK INLET KEEPERS, HOMER
testified in opposition to HB 28. He observed that Cook
Inlet Keepers is a nonprofit organization with members who
are dedicated to protecting Cook Inlet and the life it
sustains.
Mr. Shavelson maintained that the Alaska Coastal Management
Program is one of the most valuable tools for ensuring the
long-term health and viability of Alaska's coastal habitats
and economies. He asserted that HB 28 is a direct attack on
the people and communities of coastal areas, which rely on
fisheries and other resources for their livelihoods.
Mr. Shavelson maintained that section 4 of the committee
substitute would:
1. Force eleven coastal districts to rewrite coastal
management plans within one year.
2. Not ensure that the number of consistency reviews will
decrease because a large portion of coastal development
activity occurs within 10 miles of the mean high tide
line.
3. Ignore the impacts of non-point source pollution (NPS)
on sensitive salmon and other habitats beyond the 10-
mile zone.
Mr. Shavelson pointed out that non-point source pollution
generates between 60-70% of all water pollution in the
Nation according to the Environmental Protection Agency. He
asserted that the arbitrary selection of a 10-mile wide zone
ignores the ecological connections and NPS implications of
development in that area.
4. Ignore impacts to the coastal zone from activities
physically taking place beyond the coastal zone.
Mr. Shavelson acknowledged that trapper cabins might be a
use that should prevail under consistency review, but
stressed that other projects, such as large-scale road
development require scrutiny.
Mr. Shavelson expressed concern with section 5. Section 5
would eliminate public participation in the coastal project
review process. According to the Division of Governmental
Coordination, less than 1 % of all coastal projects has been
petitioned within the past 5 years. He maintained that
petitions have not been abused and are not a duplication of
effort. He maintained that deleting the petition process
shuts the public out of important decisions regarding
publicly owned resources. He noted that thousands of
families rely on healthy salmon habitats.
Mr. Shavelson asserted that section 5 would jeopardize
federal approval of the Alaska program, thereby threatening
federal funding of about $2.6 million dollars per year, for
an important program which has helped improve economic and
environmental conditions throughout the state.
Mr. Shavelson concluded that HB 28 would unravel a program,
which has proved effective in helping to promote healthy
coastal communities throughout the state. He acknowledged
that the Alaska Coastal Management Program is not perfect,
but stressed that its problems do not warrant changes
proposed by HB 28.
LINDA FREED, KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH testified in opposition
to HB 28. She noted that the Kodiak Island Borough has
concerns regarding the stipulation provision. She observed
that a double standard would apply in regards to federal
projects.
Ms. Freed expressed concern with subsection (j)(1). She
maintained that the subsection implies that areas outside of
a coastal district would not be subject to stipulation.
Ms. Freed expressed concern with the 10-mile boundary. She
noted that the Kodiak Island Borough went through an
extensive process to set its boundaries. She maintained
that local elected officials should decide where the
boundaries should be set. She pointed out that pollution
from major fill and dock projects would not be point
pollution and would not be under the provisions of the
legislation. She emphasized that local areas use their
coastal management authority to supplement their zoning
authority.
Ms. Freed spoke against the elimination of the petition
process. She noted that the Kodiak Island Borough
successfully used the petition process. She asserted that
the petition process secured a better product for the Kodiak
Island Borough.
(Tape Change, HFC 98 - 63, Side 2)
Ms. Freed expressed concern that the Borough would only have
one year to comply with the changes. She observed that the
Kodiak Island Borough has made a concerted effort to
streamline all permitting processes to benefit those in and
out of the community. Title 29 planning and zoning
authority has been integrated with their coastal management
plan under Title 46. In addition to having to modify the
coastal management plan to meet the statute change,
significant sections of their subdivision code, land title
code and zoning code would have to be modified to comply
with the legislation. She asserted that the legislation
represents an unfunded mandate. She maintained that federal
funding would be jeopardized. She did not think that the
language would be supported under the federal act.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that Title 16 covers activities
that take place in the stream. If there is a discharge from
the activity then a Department of Environmental Conservation
permit would be required under Title 46. He maintained that
a consistency determination restricted to water issues would
protect the fish habitat.
Co-Chair Therriault explained that the state of Alaska
petitioned the federal government, when the program was
approved, to allow Alaska's zones to go further inland than
the federal government would have required.
In response to a question by Representative Davis, Ms. Freed
described the Kodiak Island Borough's boundaries. She
observed that the Kodiak Island Borough got into coastal
zone management due to offshore oil and gas sales proposed
in Shelikof Strait. She expressed concern that the
legislation would not allow the Borough to comment on
projects in federal waters. She observed that the original
coastal management program boundaries were consistent with
the original borough boundaries, before land on the
peninsula was annexed. She emphasized that there are
federal lands and waters within the Borough that are not
subject to direct regulation by the Kodiak Island Borough.
Oil and gas lease sales in Shelikof Strait could be one mile
from shore and still be outside the Borough's control.
Representative Davies observed that the federal program
allows the coastal zone region to reach beyond the
boundaries if they can demonstrate impact from an activity
beyond their boundary.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Ms. Freed
noted that the provisions of the Forest Practices Act were
incorporated into the Borough's coastal plan. The Kodiak
Island Borough participated in the development of the Forest
Practices Act.
THOMAS SPARKS, BERING STRAITS NATIVE CORPORATION, NOME
expressed concerns regarding the 10-mile boundary cutoff and
restrictions on stipulations.
ROBERT FAGERSTROM, CITY OF NOME observed that the city of
Nome passed a resolution in opposition to HB 28. He
expressed concerns with the elimination of the right to
petition a Coastal Policy Council and restrictions on
stipulations. He observed that stipulations have been
successful in regards to oil exploration in the Nome area.
He cautioned that changes do not result in the loss of
federal approval.
In response to a question by Representative Davis, Mr.
Fagerstrom acknowledged that there is room for improvement.
He emphasized the need to work together for changes that
make sense. He stressed that most of the state's
development occurs in rural Alaska.
MURRAY WALSH, ALASKA CHAPTER, AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION,
JUNEAU stated that he is a private practice planning
consultant with industrial clients. He emphasized that the
coastal management program is a tool. He stressed the need
to protect federal approval and funding. He expressed
concern that a level playing field exist. Rules and
procedures should be simple and clear.
Mr. Walsh noted that a company that requires a permit is at
more risk than one that does not require a permit even if
they are engaged in the same activity. The company that
needs a solid waste permit has to meet requirements, while a
company that scatters their stuff on the ground does not
have to pay any price.
Mr. Walsh proposed that any improvement to the Coastal
Management Act encourage and enhance the use of pro-
development policies that are already in the Act. Mr. Walsh
maintained that the Division of Governmental Coordination
(DGC) is unique in its ability to reflect pro-development
policies of the program. He stressed the need for a
legislative directive to make sure that pro-development
policies are considered.
Mr. Walsh maintained that the federal consistency provision
has been underused by the state of Alaska. The state of
Alaska's ability to affect federal decisions on federal
policy could be better served with a more aggressive use of
the program.
Mr. Walsh noted that he helped to draft the Coastal
Management Act. He stressed that an emphasis on local
planning and management was instrumental in passage of the
Act.
In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf, Mr.
Walsh asserted that restrictions on agency stipulations
threatens federal approval. He observed that many coastal
resource areas will not like the 10-mile boundary change,
but did not think it would threaten federal approval. He
stressed that the key to federal approval is the state
program's ability to control impact on coastal resources.
He recommended that the petition process be replaced with
another option. He observed that if coastal resource areas
were misapplying statutes and regulations from state
agencies then it would be a healthy change to eliminate the
petition process. He was not aware of any problems with
misuse. He acknowledged that there have been difficulties
with agencies reaching too far. He emphasized that coastal
management has a full body of policies. He maintained that
if pro-development supporters respect environmental
protection policies then environmental supporters should
respect pro-development policies.
Co-Chair Therriault summarized that if pro-development
supporters are going to recognize the need to live with
certain environmental restrictions, then pro-environmental
supporters must acknowledge that development is going to be
allowed. Mr. Walsh agreed and added that development is
going to be allowed and encouraged by the program.
Representative Davies asked Mr. Walsh to comment on the
provision that prohibits a state agency or coastal resource
district from stipulating to a matter or subject for which
the agency or district may not exercise authority outside of
AS 46.40. Mr. Walsh stated that if this provision resulted
in situations where development proposals of identical
impact were treated different then federal approval would be
threatened. He added that this provision also causes
concerns regarding a level playing field.
PATRICK GALVIN, ATTORNEY, ANCHORAGE noted that he represents
districts and applicants to the Alaska Coastal Management
Plan (ACMP). He explained that the ACMP is Alaska's
response to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
He stated that CZMA allows the state of Alaska to manage
state coastal resources. In return, the federal government
provides $2.6 million dollars per year and agrees to comply
with state plans on federal projects. In order to maintain
federal compliance the state of Alaska must have the
authority to insure that projects will be in compliance with
state programs. By limiting the ability of state agencies
and the coastal districts to put stipulations on projects
that require compliance with the program the state loses the
required authority under the federal act and is therefore
out of compliance. Under the proposed committee substitute
the state would lose the ability to require compliance on
projects that do not fall into specific categories. He
referred to subsection (j)(1). He maintained that this
provision would throw out all federal consistency. He noted
that federal lands are excluded from the state coastal zone.
The state can only require compliance when the project
affects the state coastal zone. If a consistency
determination cannot be required for anything outside of the
state coastal zone then a consistency determination cannot
be done for anything on federal lands, such as federal
offshore oil and gas leases. Federal law requires that the
State have the ability to exercise oversight in the
implementation of the program by local districts and state
agencies. This means that when state agencies are putting
out stipulations or deciding which permits are needed to
comply, or doing a project review, the State has to have a
mechanism where someone makes sure the state agencies are
doing it right. This is why the petition process was
developed. The last four years, the petition process was
split into two parts. One part was the systematic review of
agencies and local district's implementation. The other
part was the actual project review. The actual project
review has caused some controversy. The legislation would
delete the entire petition process. This would result in
the loss of federal compliance. Something would need to be
put into place to maintain state oversight.
Mr. Galvin stated that new language regarding implementation
of a 10-mile boundary would be difficult to interpret. He
asserted that the protection aspect of the program would be
threatened by the inability to control the affects of a dock
on a river in salmon habitat that did not require water
discharge authorization. He pointed out that the CRSA
boards do not have the authority to stipulate. The program
allows them to suggest or recommend stipulations. The
agency decides if stipulations are required as part of the
project.
DALE BONDURANT, KENAI spoke in opposition to HB 28. He
maintained that the legislation is an open invitation for
irresponsible resource extraction at the cost of public
trust wildlife and waters. He urged the Committee not to
let quick economic exploration be the excuse for resource
depletion and extinction.
JOE GELDHOF, ATTORNEY observed that he worked on the program
in 1983, as an assistant attorney general with the
Department of Law. He noted that the intent was for the
public to have a single point of contact for project
development. He recalled that, prior to the program,
agencies were fighting over jurisdiction. He spoke in
support of consistency review by the Division of
Governmental Coordination. He maintained that the appeal to
the Coastal Management Council is a problem. He referred to
the committee substitute. He spoke in support of deleting
the petition process. He asserted that the petition process
is unneeded and has resulted in delays and problems.
Mr. Geldhof recommended that instead of a direct and
indirect boundary at 10-miles, that there be a substantial
gate at the 10-mile boundary. He suggested that a written
finding of clear and convincing evidence be required to
regulate activities beyond the 10-mile boundary.
Mr. Geldhof disagreed that federal funding would be
jeopardized by eliminating petitions to the Coastal Policy
Council. He stated that unless there is a written statement
by the federal government indicating that funding would be
jeopardized that it should be eliminated.
Representative Davies asked if one or two petition cases out
of 2,000 is a big deal. Mr. Geldhof replied that after
working on a project and convincing the agencies and the
Governor's office to allow the project, that the time delay
can be significant. He did not think the petition process
was justified.
Representative Davies observed that the petition applies to
the issue of whether or not it can be demonstrated that the
agencies took into account the concerns that were made in
the process. The issue is not completely revisited.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that the permit process
involves public input and initial findings. If a person
felt that their concerns were not listened to they could
elevate the issuance of the permit.
(Tape Change, HFC 98 -65, Side 1)
Representative Davies reiterated that deletion of the
petition process will lead to an increase in litigation. He
emphasized that the petition process would be more cost
effective than taking people's concerns to the courts.
Mr. Geldhof maintained that people's comments and
considerations are taken into account. He stressed that
there will always be disgruntled individuals that will use
the petition process to slow projects. He did not think
that the petition process facilitated orderly review or
development. He stressed that the petition comes after the
commissioners of Department of Fish and Game, Department of
Natural Resources and Department of Environmental
Conservation have considered the issue. He added that the
governor might also have weighed in on the issue. He stated
that after DGC and the governor have resolved the issue it
should be taken to the court for decision, not to a
citizen's petition.
Representative Grussendorf emphasized the need for a safety
valve, short of going to the court. He questioned if
petitions were filed by individuals or groups and what was
the disposition of the petitions.
LINDA WRIGHT, KASILOF spoke against HB 28. She maintained
that the legislation is an attempt to dismantle or dilute
the protective, regulatory infrastructure. She did not like
the committee substitute. She did not want to see the ACMP
limited.
In response to a question by Representative Davis, Ms.
Wright stated that she was not aware of problems with the
program.
CHUCK DEGNAN, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, BERING STRAITS COASTAL
RESOURCE SERVICE AREA (BSCRSA) spoke in opposition to HB 28.
He observed that the BSCRSA's boundary would be reduced by
the legislation. He observed that the area is heavily
dependent on subsistence uses. He spoke in support of the
petition process.
BERNE MILLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE spoke
against HB 28. He recounted comments by Southeast
communities to the Board of the Southeast Conference during
discussion on HB 28:
? "We are surrounded by forest service land, and we think
that changes in the program would decrease our ability to
influence what happens around our community."
? "We have used this program very successfully to move
projects forward when agencies seem to be unable to
agree."
? "We are liable to lose some of the federal money that
gives us the resources to have an impact on what happens
around our community."
? "We are very strongly focused on economic development and
we fear that changes in the program will take out of our
hands one of the tools that we can use sometimes to help
that economic development move forward."
Mr. Miller stated that changes in the committee substitute
do not work in the interest of coastal communities.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if Mr. Miller had identified
anything in the committee substitute that would preclude the
coordination function. Mr. Miller stressed that he had not
had sufficient time to review the committee substitute.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that there had been some
testimony questioning if federal funding would be lost as
the result of the legislation. He noted that the
coordination function helps development occur. He concluded
that some of the expressed concerns are not grounded in the
committee substitute.
Representative Davies stated that concern in regards to
federal land remains. Co-Chair Therriault emphasized that
the legislation could be amended to resolve the issue of
federal offshore development.
Mr. Miller stressed that communities in the Southeast
Conference are concerned with forest service lands around
their communities.
In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf, Mr.
Miller clarified that the Conference did not discuss the 10-
mile limit because it had not been offered at the time of
the discussion. There was no specific discussion in regards
to the petition process.
KEVIN RITCHIE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
(AML) noted that local elected officials are concerned with
local economic development. He added that local elected
officials are also concerned that economic development does
not inhibit the growth of communities or industries in the
communities. He noted that the CZMP has provided a good
voice to many communities in their development processes.
The AML supports the CZMP. The AML opposes the reduction of
the ability of local communities to effectively regulate
development. The AML is not closing the door to changes in
the CZMP process. He referred to section 4, page 2. He
maintained that this section eliminates the real value of
the coastal zone management process by restricting
stipulations. He added that this section could jeopardize
federal approval of the program. He recommended consulting
with federal agencies and municipal governments on the
issue.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the committee substitute
reserves the program's coordination function.
DIANE MAYER, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION, OFFICE OF
THE GOVERNOR agreed that the legislation does not directly
eliminate the coordination function. She observed that the
legislation would weaken coordination. She noted that
agencies are required to be consistent with the program.
She stressed that, under section 4, the program would do
nothing more than what the agencies could do under their
current authorities. She explained that if the program acts
as a magnet to hold the parties together in a project
management review, the magnet is weakened by the statutory
statement, that nothing additional is going to happen in
that review. She felt that section 4 would result in
agencies being less engaged. She thought that this would be
the affect of the legislation, not the intention of the
legislation.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the legislation can be
modified to clarify that offshore lands are still covered.
Ms. Mayer observed that the legislation states that a
consistency review cannot be done for a project that is
outside of a coastal district. By definition all federal
land is outside a coastal district. She observed that the
provision would affect federal land management and oil and
gas offshore leasing. She agreed that this area of the bill
needed further work.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if one coastal area could
reach into a project in an adjourning district. Ms. Mayer
did not know of any cases where one district commented on a
project in another district in Alaska. She observed that
there have been common comments on offshore areas that would
affect multiple districts.
Ms. Mayer pointed out that the legislation assumes that
coastal districts cover the entire state coast. There are
gaps in coastal districts. Project reviews could only occur
when a project is inside a district. The program would not
cover the majority of Prince William Sound and Southeast
Alaska because they are not within a coastal district.
Representative Grussendorf asked for additional information
regarding petitions. Ms. Mayer observed that the petition
authority was changed by the Legislature in 1994. The
process was simplified. She observed that there have been 6
petitions before the Coastal Policy Council. Two of the
petitions were remanded under the current standard. The
Council remands cases where they judge that public comments
were not fairly considered in the process. In the two
remanded cases, the Coastal Policy Council ruled that the
record did not adequately reflect fair consideration of
comments and the petitions were remanded back to the agency
for consideration. Petitions are either remanded or
dismissed within a 30-day period. She noted that one of the
remanded cases was a Department of Natural Resources lease
sale. There was further consideration of comments and the
sale went forward.
Ms. Mayer reviewed the other petitioned cases:
* The United States Postal Service put a hovercraft down
a river in the Yukon/Kuskokwin region. The state
worked with the Postal Service through the coastal
management program. A citizen petitioned to have the
hovercraft project further considered. The petition
was dismissed.
* People from Angoon entered a petition relating to
harvesting of a Native allotment. This petition
brought up discussion on the right of review and
federal standing and responsibilities as trustees of
Native allotments. The process brought the parties
together and resulted in a land trade.
* The Juneau Tramway was petitioned by a citizen of
Juneau, who felt that the City misused it's powers to
dispose of land. This petition was dismissed.
* A neighbor in Kenai was concerned about an oilrig
running through their neighborhood. The petition was
dismissed, but the neighbor and the borough worked
together to solve the problem.
* There was a petition relating to private road
development in Kenai area wetlands. This petition led
to a remand.
Ms. Mayer observed that six people have approached the
Council since 1994. The program has reviewed approximately
2,100 projects since that time.
Ms. Mayer stated that the Administration supports
maintaining the petition process. She acknowledged that
petitions can be frustrating. She observed that the
Division does not have staff that specifically handles
petitions. The Coastal Policy Council has been looking at
ways to simplify petitions.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that the petition
process is supported by pro-development groups.
Co-Chair Therriault asked how many of the dismissed
petitions have resulted in court actions. Ms. Mayer noted
that one petition is being pursued in court.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if the Council's action was
appropriate in regards to the Kenai River petition. Ms.
Mayer responded that petitions allow citizens to bring their
issues before the Coastal Policy Council. She acknowledged
that there has been discussion regarding that petition. Co-
Chair Therriault pointed out that the legal directive to the
Council was clear in regards to the parameters of what they
were to consider. He observed that members of the Council
refused to be bound by the legal parameters. Co-Chair
Therriault felt that the Council's action was inappropriate.
Ms. Mayer observed that there was a lot of controversy
surrounding the petition.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that the program
receives thousands of applications and that there are only a
handful of appeals. He asserted that the petition process
serves a valid purpose.
In response to a question by Representative Davis, Ms. Mayer
explained the elevation process. She observed that there
are standards that need to be met. Involved parties are
working toward resolution. She explained that people can
propose solutions to issues as they relate to the standards
of the program. Discussion and debate occurs between all
parties. The Division of Governmental Coordination
facilitates the discussion. When DGC thinks a solution has
been reached they present a proposed determination. The
involved parties have a period of 5 to 10 days to consider
the determination. If they disagree it is elevated and
taken to the next higher level. It is then brought to the
commissioner as a policy matter. An elevation is a way to
withdraw implied consent. She estimated that 25 or 30
petitions have been elevated.
HB 28 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
House Finance Committee 19 3/11/98pm
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|