Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/03/2003 09:10 AM 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
May 03, 2003
9:10 A.M.
TAPE HFC 03 - 74, Side A
TAPE HFC 03 - 74, Side B
TAPE HFC 03 - 75, Side A
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Harris called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:10 A.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Harris, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bill Stoltze
Representative Jim Whitaker
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Mike Chenault
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Beth Kerttula; Representative David
Guttenberg; Tim Barry, Staff, Representative Bill Williams;
Bill Jeffress, Director, Office of Project Management and
Permitting, Department of Natural Resources
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Aves Thompson, Director, Measurement Standards and
Commercial Vehicle Enforcement, Department of Transportation
& Public Facilities, Anchorage; Marty Rutherford,
Consultant, Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage; Pat
Galvin, Petroleum, Division of Oil and Gas, Department of
Natural Resources, Anchorage; Faye Sullivan, Regulatory
Affairs Coordinator, Unocal Alaska, Anchorage; Larry Houle,
General Manger, Alaska Support Industry Alliance, Anchorage;
Chuck Degnan, Board Member, Bering Straits Coastal Resource
Service Area, Unakleet; John Oscar, Coastal Management
Program, Bering Sea; Judy Brady, Executive Director, Alaska
Oil and Gas Advisory Council (AOGAC), Anchorage; Larry
Houle, General Manger, Alaska Support Industry Alliance,
Anchorage; Faye Sullivan, Regulatory Affairs Coordinator,
Unocal Alaska, Anchorage; Bob Shavelson, Executive Director,
Cook Inlet Keeper Non Profit Organization, Cook Inlet; Nancy
Wainwright, Attorney, Anchorage
SUMMARY
HB 191 An Act relating to the Alaska coastal management
program and to policies and procedures for
consistency reviews and the rendering of
consistency determinations under that program;
relating to the functions of coastal resource
service areas; creating an Alaska Coastal Program
Evaluation Council; eliminating the Alaska Coastal
Policy Council; annulling certain regulations
relating to the Alaska coastal management program;
relating to actions based on private nuisance;
relating to zoning within a third class borough
covered by the Alaska coastal management program;
and providing for effective dates.
CS HB 191 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" and with a zero fiscal note
#1 by the Department of Fish and Game, zero fiscal
note #2 by the Department of Environmental
Conservation and a new zero note by the Department
of Natural Resources.
HB 280 An Act relating to the regulation of commercial
motor vehicles to avoid loss or withholding of
federal highway money, and to out-of-service
orders concerning commercial motor vehicles;
amending Rule 43.1, Alaska Rules of
Administration; and providing for an effective
date.
CS HB 280 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal note #1
by the Department of Administration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 280
An Act relating to the regulation of commercial motor
vehicles to avoid loss or withholding of federal
highway money, and to out-of-service orders concerning
commercial motor vehicles; amending Rule 43.1, Alaska
Rules of Administration; and providing for an effective
date.
AVES THOMPSON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
MEASUREMENT STANDARDS AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLE ENFORCEMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC FACILITIES, ANCHORAGE,
stated that HB 280 would transfer certain authority to
regulate commercial motor vehicles from the Department of
Public Safety to the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities. The change is needed to avoid losing federal
highway money. The bill would also directly amend Rule 43.1
of the Alaska Rules of Administration.
Under current law, the authority to adopt regulations
regarding commercial motor vehicles is divided amongst:
· Department of Administration for licensing of drivers
of commercial motor vehicles;
· Department of Transportation & Public Facilities for
matters relating to commercial motor vehicle
inspections; and
· Department of Public Safety for all matters relating to
commercial motor vehicles.
Under HB 280, the authority to adopt regulations necessary
to avoid loss or withholding of federal highway money would
be vested in the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities except for matters that relate to licensing of
drivers for commercial motor vehicles.
Mr. Thompson continued, the bill would correct an oversight
that occurred when implementing Executive Orders (EO) 98 and
99 in 1997. EO 98 transferred the responsibility for
commercial motor vehicle safety inspections from the
Department of Public Safety to the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities. EO 99 transferred most
functions related to motor vehicles found in Title 28 from
Department of Public Safety to the Department of
Administration. After the issuance of EO's 98 and 99, the
Department of Public Safety retained the authority to adopt
regulations related to commercial motor vehicles, except for
safety inspections and driver licensing. HB 280 would
transfer the remaining regulation authority in Department of
Public Safety relating to commercial motor vehicles to the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. The
Department needs the authority to adopt those regulations to
avoid the loss or withholding of federal funding.
He added that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration regulations provide that a State becomes
ineligible for basic program or incentive funds under the
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program for failure to adopt
any new regulation or amendment to the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSR) or the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR) within three years of the effective date.
Since the State's adoption of federal regulations pertaining
to Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) operations,
driver/vehicle safety standards and hazardous materials
transport has not been updated since 1995; Alaska is out of
compliance.
Alaska will receive $685.5 thousand dollars in basic program
and incentive funds in FY03. Loss of those funds through
failure to pass the legislation and the subsequent failure
to adopt the current regulations would virtually eliminate
the commercial vehicle safety enforcement effort in Alaska.
The Alaska Trucking Association (ATA), Teamsters Local 959
and the Associated General Contractors of Alaska support the
bill provisions correcting the regulation adoption authority
problems and supporting the language in existing statute.
The Departments of Public Safety and Administration also
support the legislation.
Co-Chair Harris asked if the Teamster's support the bill.
Mr. Thompson replied that they do and he noted that he did
not object to Amendment #1.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1. (Copy on
File). He stated that the amendment would provide a title
change on Page 1, Line 3, inserting language "moves
authority for commercial motor vehicle regulation from the
Department of Public Safety to the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities". There being NO
OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted.
Representative Croft inquired why a fix could not have been
accomplished through an Executive Order rather than a
statutory change. Mr. Thompson explained that was an
oversight.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 280 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 280 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with fiscal note #1 by the
Department of Administration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 191
An Act relating to the Alaska coastal management
program and to policies and procedures for consistency
reviews and the rendering of consistency determinations
under that program; relating to the functions of
coastal resource service areas; creating an Alaska
Coastal Program Evaluation Council; eliminating the
Alaska Coastal Policy Council; annulling certain
regulations relating to the Alaska coastal management
program; relating to actions based on private nuisance;
relating to zoning within a third class borough covered
by the Alaska coastal management program; and providing
for effective dates.
Vice-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT work draft #23-GH1069\H,
Kurtz, 5/01/03, as the version of the bill before the
Committee.
Representative Croft OBJECTED. He asked the difference
between the two versions.
MARTY RUTHERFORD, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
CONSULTANT, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ANCHORAGE,
explained that there are two differences between the House
Resources committee substitute and the House Finance
committee substitute. One is a technical change involving
two parts, Page 15, Section 22, Subsection "O". The
language clarifies that the new 90-day deadline for
completing a review does not apply to the review involving
the Department's disposal of State land or resources. That
process is detailed in statute and would require a finding.
The finding combined with other elements of the consistency
review cannot be accomplished within 90-days. The second
part of the amendment provides clarification that the 90-day
time frame would be suspended, not terminated under three
situations:
· When an applicant does not adequately respond
within fourteen days in writing after receiving a
request for additional information from the agency
that is adopting the consistency review.
· When a project applicant requests a delay.
· When a consistency review undergoes an elevation,
which is an appeal.
The second difference between the two versions is an
amendment to satisfy one concern of the coastal districts.
It would require when the district requests, the Department
would consult with them to help identify which amendments
necessary for plans and local policies in order to meet the
established guidelines. That language is found on Page 23,
Section 47, Lines 28-30.
Representative Croft WITHDREW his OBJECTION,
Ms. Rutherford added that a team had been reworking HB 191
attempting to make substantive changes to the original bill.
Those changes are included in the House Finance Committee
substitute.
She reported that the coastal management program is an older
program that has not adequately responded to the changes in
the Alaska statutory and regulatory regime. The result is
that existing programs are often redundant. It is a program
that uses local enforcement policies that are often a
reiteration of the regulatory agencies permitting standards.
Furthermore, the program's consistency review process as
currently structured is unpredictable and overly broad in
scope and takes too much time.
Ms. Rutherford continued, the statewide standards and the
local enforcement policies are often vague and subject to
multiple interpretations. She noted that the program does
have problems, however, the sweeping changes proposed in the
original HB 191 does eliminate many of the fundamental
reasons that Alaska embraced the coastal management program
in the first place.
During the initial committee hearings and discussions
regarding HB 191, the Administration took to heart the
comments made by the districts, listening to the citizens
statewide. The committee substitute introduced in the House
Resources Committee returned to the basic structure of the
existing coastal management program. Furthermore, that
committee substitute insures that all federal activities and
activities required at federal and State permits would have
a consistency review.
The committee substitute insures that the districts retain
their seats at the table, which is important when the State
resource agencies are considering resource projects. While
some of the elements are retained, the committee substitute
would make significant changes to the program. The
attempted balance is retention of the important elements
directing the problem.
The House Finance Committee substitute includes
recommendations for elimination of the Coastal Policy
Council, transferring the duties to the Commissioner of the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). It also provides a
sunset provision on the current statewide standards and on
the coastal district plans. Additionally, it mandates that
replacement standards and local policy be rewritten to be
clear and concise. It would clarify that local enforcement
policies may not address a matter that is regulated or
authorized by State or federal law unless the policy relates
specifically to a matter of local concern. The legislation
provides important clarification on the consistency review
process in order to provide better standards and timelines.
Ms. Rutherford concluded, the committee substitute clarifies
that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
permits and authorizations would constitute the consistency
determinations for activities regulated by that Department's
air and water quality standards. The change would insulate
the coastal management consistency review process from
delays associated with some of Department of Environmental
Conservation's more complex permits and authorizations.
That change would streamline the process.
Ms. Rutherford spoke to the fiscal note. She noted that
there would be some immediate savings from the coastal
management program budget based on Executive Order 106,
which transfers the functions of the Division of
Governmental Coordination to the Department of Natural
Resources. Those savings are realized in the FY04 operating
budget as a reduction of $342 thousand dollars in State
general fund match. The reduction would result in the
elimination of five full time positions and one temporary
position. She added that there would be a significant
effort over the next three years for the Department of
Natural Resources to clarify and update the statewide
standards and for the districts to clarify their plans and
policies.
Co-Chair Harris asked how this would affect local
communities controlling their "destiny" with regard to
environmental quality and land use.
Ms. Rutherford replied that there is a distinction there.
The legislation would remove the local districts ability to
develop specific enforceable policy. Under the legislation,
the communities would not be able to implement a local
enforcement policy to exceed the water quality standard for
the Department of Environmental Conservation. Because the
Department of Environmental Conservation air and water
quality standards do not address some things, in those
areas, the local communities would be able to develop their
own local policy regarding the citings. When a Title 29
municipality has a local ordinance permitting functions
linked to air and water quality, the bill would not
eliminate their ability to do that under their Title 29
authority. It simply eliminates their ability to embed that
in a local enforcement policy.
Ms. Rutherford addressed land use. She noted that the bill
indicates that a municipality cannot restate a State
standard or regulation, but rather, determine an area where
a gap exists.
Representative Croft referenced Sections #11 and #14. He
asked why that language does not exclude any discussion on
air, land and/or water protection. Ms. Rutherford requested
that Mr. Galvin respond to that question.
PAT GALVIN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PETROLEUM,
DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
ANCHORAGE, explained that the language in Section 11 refers
to the standards of the program. The Coastal Management
Program (CMP) has always looked to the Department of
Environmental Conservation statutes and regulations as
establishing the air, land and water quality standards for
the program and for the most part, the districts have
referred to those standards. The bill is a product of a
problem that has existed within the Coastal Management
Program based upon the embedding of the Department of
Environmental Conservation standards into the Coastal
Management consistency requirements. For the permitting
process, a project could not be found consistent until it
was found by the Department of Environmental Conservation to
meet all their requirements, resulting in no permits being
issued because the State cannot issue permits until the
Department finds the projects consistent. The intent of the
legislation is to separate those two so that the Department
of Environmental Conservation permitting process can proceed
at its own pace and the consistency determination can be
issued without waiting for the Department to complete the
permit.
Mr. Galvin explained that the question became how to keep
the standards in place, retaining a reasonable process. One
area was to determine if the districts would be able to add
additional criteria to what the Department of Environmental
Conservation regulates. HB 191 indicates that they cannot.
What the Department of Environmental Conservation regulates
are the State standards, which will apply throughout Alaska.
The districts would not be able to add additional
requirements to those specific purposes.
Representative Croft asked if part of the concern was that
the districts would adopt the same statutes, however,
interpreting them differently from the Department. Mr.
Galvin replied that the problem was not that the districts
had been interpreting the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) standards differently. The problem with
the standards has been their role in the program. HB 191
clarifies that if the State is to allow the DEC permits to
stand for a consistency determination and if the districts
are allowed to add another requirement, it would create a
need for two consistency determinations and two local review
processes during that timeline. The decision was clear that
the Department's permit needs to stand on its own and with
its own standards and that the districts cannot allow
additional requirements to those standards.
Representative Croft referenced the sectional analysis, Page
2, regarding coastal districts having enforceable policies
for activities in a project that are not addressed by the
Department of Environmental Conservation standards. He
inquired where that authority would be defined.
Mr. Galvin pointed out that in one of the earlier sections,
the language was changed and made to specific references to
air, land and water quality. The language was changed to
make specific reference to statutory provisions so not to
presume that air, land and water quality are the exclusive
product of that Department. The idea is that only whatever
DEC embeds into statutory provisions would then establish
where DEC is regulating. That would preclude the districts
from going into those areas.
Representative Croft thought that constitutional enforcement
policies for "those purposes" are too broad. A grant of
exclusive enforcement policy jurisdiction is clear; however,
the exception is not yet clear. He asked how that language
would interact with Section 14 and that State law could not
adequately address a plan.
Mr. Galvin responded that the intent of Section 14 is to
allow the districts to adopt local enforcement policies
where the matter is not adequately addressed by State or
federal law. Section 11 is specifically designed so that
only the references to those statutes that DEC is actually
regulating. If there is an area that the Department
regulates, then the locals would be able to address them.
Regarding the language "exclusive enforcement policies", if
DEC is regulating an activity then that would be presumed to
be adequately addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA referenced Section 11, the
federal activities and voiced concern regarding that
activity. She asked what would be left if the Department of
Environmental Conservation standards had been precluded.
Mr. Galvin referenced b(2) in conjunction with Section C
below it. Sub Section © recognizes that in the outer
continental shelf, the review would be done by the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Since DEC is not
issuing a permit, then they would be looking at their
standards making a finding to determine if it meets their
requirements. In sub Section ©, DNR would review all other
enforceable policies and would then incorporate the
Department of Environmental Conservation finding into the
consistency review.
Representative Kerttula pointed out that it would be DNR
applying the DEC standards and issuing the consistency
determination based upon that. Mr. Galvin responded that in
regard to the areas that DEC regulates, the district would
not have enforceable policies dealing with the activities
that DEC was regulating under Sections 11 & 14. Under those
sections, there could be district policies that relate to
those issues.
Ms. Rutherford interrupted, noting that there was material
regarding the local enforcement policies that meet the
requirements of the committee substitute in Section #14.
In reference to an example provided by Mr. Galvin,
Representative Kerttula commented that language would be
"splitting fine hairs" about what the Department of
Environmental Conservation standards are under Section #11
and that it would be a "terrible" area for litigation.
Representative Kerttula asked when the policy changes and if
DEC has the exclusive enforceable policy, what would happen
to federal activity in local districts. Mr. Galvin did not
know the policies referenced by Representative Kerttula;
however, based upon the description of the policies, he
thought that they would be allowed under the provisions of
the committee substitute and that DEC would be looking at
the technical evaluation of the review.
Representative Kerttula asked what would happen if the local
municipality had been precluded and the Department of
Environmental Conservation had a set standard. She asked
how would the local municipality receive a break. Mr.
Galvin did not understand the presumption that the district
would not have any enforceable policy on the issue. He
responded that if it did not, then DEC permitting would be
the determination of the efficiency and then the permitting
process would make that determination. Ms. Rutherford
pointed out that few districts have decided to expand or
make more aggressive standards that are currently imposed by
the Department's activities subject to regulation. The only
circumstance found was when a couple districts chose to
require that a containment area for stored fuel would be at
110% capacity instead of the DEC established standard of
105%. Including those regulations in a consistency review
has greatly delayed the issuance of permits.
Representative Stoltze voiced concern that the handouts
distributed had not been adequately identified. He stressed
that documents should indicate from where they are being
distributed. He knew that there would be litigation
resulting from this legislation and that the handouts had
not properly been labeled. Ms. Rutherford noted the
Administration had provided a one-page synopsis, which
identified only the key components of the committee
substitute, a time line of transition to the new program, a
chart that compares the committee substitute and a sectional
analysis.
TAPE HFC 03 - 74, Side B
Co-Chair Harris asked where the handouts had come from. Ms.
Rutherford responded that the Department team, whom she
identified earlier, had created them.
Representative Joule asked about the litigation expected to
result from the proposed legislation. Ms. Rutherford
replied that the Coastal Management Program has been rifled
with litigation for the past 15 years. The intent of the
legislation is to bring some clarity into the statewide
standards and local enforcement policies so that they are
not subject to the confusion that currently exists. She
hoped that it would reduce the current amount of litigation.
Representative Joule pointed out that the legislation would
do-away with the State Policy Counsel and moves those
responsibilities to the Department of Natural Resources
Commissioner's Office. He recognized that the issue is a
big concern and should have the citizen's participation and
review. He mentioned all the other boards that review
standards. Representative Joule reiterated that this is a
very important area and should be adequately reviewed and
considered.
Representative Joule spoke to the fiscal note. He asked
when district level policy councils become null and void,
would the State continue to help with financial resources
for the transition. He noted that the fiscal note only goes
through FY09 and that there would be a 10-year reevaluation.
He asked if the district councils would receive the State's
financial support.
BILL JEFFRESS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND
PERMITTING, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, spoke to the
fiscal note. He noted that the intent of the legislation
was to keep the program continuing all its functions and
redirecting the focus to better assist the coastal
districts.
Representative Joule asked about the reauthorization during
the ten-year time frame. Mr. Jeffress responded that the
program continues as long as the federal money keeps coming.
It is anticipated that the focus will shift from what it was
in the past to bringing the districts in line with the
purpose of the committee substitute and to help guide the
different coastal communities. He did not know how the
federal government would continue their financial support.
He thought that the coastal district would need to provide a
higher match to continue the same level of service.
Representative Kerttula inquired how the cuts had been
determined, how many positions had been lost and if salary
changes were made. Mr. Jeffress responded that 5 full time
positions were lost. By moving the program from the Office
of the Governor, it changed from exempt to classified
service status. With the reclassification, salaries were
adjusted to the same function equivalent within DNR. He
added that there had been an additional set back from cuts
to the State general fund money against the grant. Once the
positions are reclassified and the exact salaries are
determined, the amount of the match will be more clear.
JUDY BRADY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, ALASKA OIL AND GAS ADVISORY COUNCIL (AOGAC),
ANCHORAGE, testified in support of the committee substitute.
She urged that members closely examine information. She
asked if it was possible to develop a reliable timeline for
the existing permitting process. Ms. Brady suggested that
Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) was the single most
confusing piece of legislation and that various problems
exist within that program. She maintained that the proposed
legislation only addresses some of the problems. She
pointed out concerns with the permitting process. She
maintained that the self-implementing approach was valid in
the State because the lands and environmental laws are the
most comprehensive in the country and are designed to fully
protect all the air, water, fish and bird resources.
Ms. Brady stated that the committee substitute was the first
time that the Legislature referred to enforceable policy and
granting significant authority for the coastal districts.
She discussed reasons for AOGAC's support of the legislation
including:
· Improvements in processing time;
· Eliminating duplication of State and federal laws;
· Establishing clear guidelines of when ACM applies;
· Recognizing that DEC water standards were
inherently different and sufficiently protective;
· Requiring enforcement policies be clear and not
open to interpretation, and
· Streamlining procedures.
She concluded that Alaskans take pride in our comprehensive
environmental regulations and that we should take care that
State, local and federal laws are consistent and clear.
LARRY HOULE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), GENERAL MANGER,
ALASKA SUPPORT INDUSTRY ALLIANCE, ANCHORAGE, spoke in
support of the proposed legislation. The Alaska Coastal
Management Program (ACMP) includes the Coastal Consistency
Review Process, which requires all projects located in the
coastal zone to obtain a Consistency Determination before
State or federal permits can be issued. Nearly all oil and
gas exploration, development, expansion and routine
operations and maintenance activates undergo the Consistency
Review Process. The purpose of the Consistency Review
Process is to assure that projects within the coastal zone
are consistent with State of Alaska and local coastal
district enforceable policies. HB 191 would enforce that.
Mr. Houle stated that funding for exploration and
development in Alaska faces increasing competition and that
most competing projects are closer to markets, require less
capital intensive and do not have the challenges faced in
arctic development. For companies to make investment
decisions, operators need reliable predictions of permitting
schedules and requirements and that, delays and the lack of
permit certainty, are significant factors, which can
adversely affect the economic viability of a project.
Mr. Houle noted that given the significant transportation
costs and huge arctic development costs, Alaska projects
start out with a huge economic disadvantage. Because ACMP
is integral to the permitting system for oil and gas
operations in the coastal zone, the program is critical to
the efficiency of oil and gas operations. From the
perspective of the contracting community, today's ACMP
program is the single most significant deterrent to new oil
and gas development in the State. The current program puts
the future of oil and gas development in Alaska at risk.
Mr. Houle concluded that on behalf of the 420 company
members that make up the Alliance, they encourage the
Finance Committee to approve HB 191.
FAYE SULLIVAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), REGULATORY
AFFAIRS COORDINATOR, UNOCAL ALASKA, ANCHORAGE, spoke in
support of the committee substitute. She discussed
frustrations with the existing permitting process and the
work of the Coastal Management Program. Ms. Sullivan stated
that it is very important that the bill pass this session in
order to revitalize the economy in Alaska. She acknowledged
that the legislation does not answer all problems.
CHUCK DEGNAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), BOARD MEMBER,
BERING STRAITS COASTAL RESOURCE SERVICE AREA, UNALAKLEET,
stated that the Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area
Board opposes HB 191. That area is composed of nineteen
communities from Shishmaref on the north, Stebbins on the
south, Gambell on the west, and Unalakleet on eastern Norton
Sound. All of the communities are heavily dependent on fish
and other wildlife. All of the communities are located near
or on the seashore or on a riverbank. For healthy fish and
wildlife, clean air, water, and healthy lands are very
important to all the citizens. The Bering Straits Coastal
Management Program assists local, State, and federal
officials plan projects that will be beneficial to all
citizens, including the applicant for a permit.
HB 191 would terminate the Coastal Resource Service Areas.
HB 191 would transfer the Alaska Coastal Management Program
to the Department of Natural Resources, which would make the
Alaska Coastal Policy Council subservient to the Department
of Natural Resources. The current Alaska Coastal Management
Program is a valuable planning tool for permit reviewers,
applicants, and our citizens. Mr. Degnan stressed that all
of these communities use vast areas of land and waters to
hunt and fish. The communities oppose HB 191.
JOHN OSCAR, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), COASTAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, BERING SEA, testified in opposition to
the bill. He maintained that there is no duplication in the
current process and that each area has varying needs. He
stressed that Anchorage's needs should not determine other
areas process. Mr. Oscar discussed his experience in
creating road construction policies for coastal areas, which
did not experience delays. He pointed out that traditional
governments had not been present under Title 29 and
questioned Alaska's constitutionality under this bill. The
federal government requires equal treatment in the coastal
communities. If coastal areas are not considered in these
decisions, then tribal governments will also be excluded.
He pointed out that extensive areas are not being
represented in this process.
Mr. Oscar noted that it took five years to write a plan,
which now is being rewritten in one year. He maintained
that the bill includes only a voice for the larger
communities, noting that there is no language taking
subsistence or habitat protection into account. The
villages support development, however, he pointed out that
his village depends upon natural resources of the coastal
area. He emphasized that there needs to be more thorough
planning and involvement from the coastal districts.
BOB SHAVELSON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, COOK INLET KEEPER NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION, COOK
INLET, testified in opposition to the committee substitute.
He commented that the sweeping language of the bill would
undermine the ability of the local communities. State law
will consume local planning and there will be no room for
the local areas to shape local decisions. The bill will
"handcuff" the local communities decision-making process.
That will result in bigger government at the expense of
local communities.
Mr. Shavelson pointed out that there have been no facts
indicating the sweeping effect that the bill will have. He
inquired what an unreasonable delay would be. According to
statistics, there has not been one review that has gone over
the timetable. Currently, there is a reasonable balance
between the permanent function, local protection and the
State meeting its obligation under the constitution to
promote a balanced use of resources. He commented on the
holdup of the fuel pipeline in Anchorage, which resulted
from the Army Corps of Engineers, not the CMP. Mr.
Shavelson stressed that there are no examples of where local
district plans unreasonably held up projects and that it is
local communities and authorities that will have their power
stripped resulting from the legislation.
Mr. Shavelson addressed the fiscal impacts and unfunded
mandates. He believed that the legislation will place a
million dollar burden on the local communities. Those
communities are currently struggling with their budgets for
essential school needs, roads and other services. Now, they
are being asked to rewrite the plans that they placed time
and effort into and then submit those plans for review. He
projected that every district would be faced with severe
economic problems while accomplishing that. Additionally,
fiscal impact concerns will be the costs to oversee the
complete rewrite of rules and public hearings. That is not
reflected in the note. The bill creates a significant
change to the program and will require a comprehensive
environmental statement, which needs to be approved. That
work is highly time consuming, complex endeavor and is an
unaccounted cost.
Mr. Shavelson asked when the program change would occur. He
emphasized that unapproved programs do not get federal
funding until they are approved. He urged members to take a
prudent approach to the complexity of this issue.
TAPE HFC 03 - 75, Side A
NANCY WAINWRIGHT, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY,
ANCHORAGE, commented on the local process that the Coast
Policy Council went through in creating their individual
plans. Every plan had to go through the Coastal Policy
Council, which had six State and nine local representatives.
Each plan had unanimous support of the council.
Ms. Wainwright noted that ACMP was created under Governor
Hammond and was the way to get around the bureaucratic
approach imposing the will of the federal government on the
State or the State government on the locals. HB 191 would
return the State to the "top-down" approach and would leave
the ultimate decisions to either the Department of Natural
Resources or the Department of Environmental Conservation as
the policy makers. Not the local areas. She surmised that
local interests could be negated.
Ms. Wainwright acknowledged that the Committee should not
minimize the concerns of AOGA regarding problem solving in
delayed permitting. She stated it would not be best
resolved by imposing a local government with an unfounded
mandate. The concerns with AOGA could be met with
regulations that set a specific time frame for projects.
She understood that the Division of Governmental
Coordination (DGC) went through a three-year regulatory
revision process trying to meet some of the AOGA concerns.
Those regulations came through in January, 2003.
Ms. Wainwright concluded that the costs in having a top down
from the Department of Natural Resources & Department of
Environmental Conservation government would be tremendous.
Imposing a mandate on the locals to revise their plans will
be very expensive and the locals will be asked to bear more
of the cost burden. On that basis, the Legislature should
allow locals to review their budget and see if they have the
funds to reach the mandate.
Representative Joule spoke against closing the public
testimony on the bill. He noted that some people will be
greatly impacted by this legislation and that they were
planning on being in Juneau this Monday morning for a
meeting.
RECESS: 10:55 A.M.
RECONVENE: 11:55 A.M.
Representative Croft stated that he was not ready to offer
his amendments at this time and emphasized that this
legislation is "troubling".
Co-Chair Harris acknowledged concern dealing with the States
local management plan and the local's ability to override
the State agencies. He noted that those issues could be
addressed on the House floor.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 191 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Joule OBJECTED. He requested to hold the
bill until Monday when the Coastal Policy meeting was
scheduled. He pointed out that the areas represented by
that group will be substantially impacted by the
legislation. He knew that the bill would be going to the
Senate side and hoped that there would be testimony there.
Representative Joule acknowledged the need for resource and
economic development in Alaska; however, the current bill
proposes policy for the coastal communities, which carries
much uncertainty. He pointed out that there are cost issues
and evaluation rewrites while the fiscal notes indicate
zero.
Representative Joule reminded members that testimony had
been given indicating that the legislation could slow down
the delivering of fuel to the Anchorage airport. He
emphasized that had not been from the involvement of CMP but
rather, the Army Corps of Engineers. The Coastal Policy
Council is a vital concern for coastal areas throughout the
State. He objected to moving the bill from Committee and
doubted that the Senate would be allowing public process.
Representative Croft objected to moving the bill on the
grounds of policy and procedures. He emphasized that there
are substantive and legal issues with the bill. He stated
that he was not capable of dealing with the complexities of
outcome of passage of this the bill. Delays were caused
because "the original version was horrible". There have
been a number of hearings on the bill, and the bill keeps
moving. He reiterated that the House Finance Committee is
not doing proper procedure by sending it out of Committee.
No one knows the dimensions of this complicated bill.
Regarding policy level, back up received from the
Administration indicates that:
"Coastal resource districts could have enforceable
policies that are not addressed by the Department of
Environmental Conservation standards."
He advised that the bill states that it is the Department of
Environmental Conservation policies that are the exclusive
enforcement policies for those purposes. "Purposes" are
broadly defined in the legislation. The Legislature has not
done a good job of articulating where the Department of
Environmental Conservation statutes and regulations preempt
and where they do not. Representative Croft reiterated that
there is no indication in statute where the authority lays.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Meyer, Stoltze, Whitaker, Foster, Hawker,
Harris
OPPOSED: Moses, Croft, Joule
Co-Chair Williams and Representative Chenault were not
present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-3).
CS HB 191 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with a zero fiscal note #1 by the
Department of Fish and Game, zero fiscal note #2 by the
Department of Environmental Conservation and a new zero note
by the Department of Natural Resources.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:07 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|