Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/11/1997 01:14 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 11, 1997
1:14 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Joe Green
Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 151
"An Act relating to personal hunting of big game by big game guides
while clients are in the field and to use area registration for
portions of additional guide use areas by registered guides."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 138
"An Act relating to the Board of Storage Tank Assistance; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 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."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 151
SHORT TITLE: BIG GAME GUIDES AND REGISTRATION AREAS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) OGAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/21/97 424 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/21/97 425 (H) RESOURCES
03/06/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/06/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/11/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 138
SHORT TITLE: BOARD OF STORAGE TANK ASSISTANCE
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF BUDGET AND AUDIT COMMITTEE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/13/97 334 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/13/97 335 (H) RESOURCES
03/11/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
Telephone: (907) 465-2534
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 151.
KURT WEST, Licensing Supervisor
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
Telephone: (907) 465-2588
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained maps relating to HB 151.
CAPTAIN JOEL HARD, Commander
B Detachment
Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection
Department of Public Safety
435 South Valley Way
Palmer, Alaska 99645-6494
Telephone: (907) 746-9139
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 151.
WAYNE WOODS
P.O. Box 3037
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-2534
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 151.
GORDON BISSELL
P.O. Box 304
Sutton, Alaska 99674
Telephone: (907) 745-1842
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 151.
RANDY WELKER, Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Legislative Agencies and Offices
P.O. Box 113300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-3300
Telephone: (907) 465-3830
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 138 on behalf of Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee.
CYNTHIA PRING-HAM, Environmental Specialist III
Storage Tank Program
Division of Spill Prevention and Response
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795
Telephone: (907) 465-5301
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 138.
TERRY RENNER, Past President
Alaska Underground Tank Owners and Operators
2917 Jackson Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3036
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 138.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-25, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:14 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Ogan, Hudson, Masek, Dyson and
Joule. Representative Nicholia was present prior to the call of
order but left, returning at 1:40 p.m. Representatives Barnes,
Williams and Green joined the meeting at 1:18 p.m., 1:28 p.m. and
1:30 p.m., respectively.
HB 151 - BIG GAME GUIDES AND REGISTRATION AREAS
Number 0092
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the first order of business was House
Bill No. 151, "An Act relating to personal hunting of big game by
big game guides while clients are in the field and to use area
registration for portions of additional guide use areas by
registered guides."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN, sponsor, explained the bill essentially cleans up
a major overhaul regarding guides from the previous year. A couple
of inadvertent omissions had been brought to his attention.
Number 0140
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE said he had just received the
materials. Whether or not this was a controversial bill, the
process was set out at the beginning of session. He would
appreciate having bills the day before a hearing. He asked that HB
151 be rescheduled.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN indicated he would consider Representative Joule's
objection after hearing the bill. He acknowledged that the
proposed committee substitute was unavailable until shortly before
the meeting.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested that since people were waiting to
testify, the committee hear the bill, take testimony and then hold
the bill over if Representative Joule so wished.
Number 0457
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON expressed concern similar to
Representative Joule's. However, he also recognized that people
were expecting to testify.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES said she would need to look at a guide
bill a long time before saying another one should be passed. She
wanted to know for certain how this bill expands guide areas, for
instance.
Number 0599
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced they would hear the bill, then hold it
over if so desired. He agreed they all must make good on committee
rules.
Number 0628
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said HB 151 is fairly innocuous. Section 1,
requested by the Administration, closes a loophole. Current law
does not allow felons to become guides. Under Section 1, an
assistant guide with a previous felony conviction is not allowed to
upgrade to guide status.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said Section 2 adds a subsection, which used to be
in regulation, that disallows hunting by a guide, an assistant
guide, or anyone associated with the guiding operation, while in
the field with a client. That was inadvertently omitted in the
previous year's legislation. As an example, hunting while
accompanying clients opens the potential for guides to trade tags
with clients so the latter can take a bigger moose after shooting
a small one.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said reputable guides generally believe it is
inappropriate to hunt while in the field with clients. He recalled
that while he was on the Big Game Commercial Services Board, they
suspended a master guide's license for a man who shot wolves while
guiding.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said Section 3 makes it a misdemeanor to hunt
while in the field. Section 4 allows the court to suspend a
guide's license for that violation.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said Section 5 used to be allowed in regulation
but was not included in the statute. Currently, guides are allowed
three guide use areas, which are sub-units of a game management
area. Sometimes state and federal guide use areas overlap. This
allows a guide to add one portion of the federal area that would
normally go unused, if it is adjacent to the guide's existing area.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called a brief at-ease at 1:27 p.m.
Number 0890
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called the meeting back to order at 1:29 p.m. He
offered the proposed committee substitute, 0-LS0618\B, Utermohle,
3/11/97, as a work draft.
Number 0931
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES suggested the language in Section 5 allows
both federal areas and permit areas. "By putting this `if' section
in this bill, it is no longer housekeeping," she stated. "It's
simply an expansion of the guide areas, which I don't support.
Even before you put in the federal big game guide in the permit
areas."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted the proposed committee substitute was not
yet adopted.
Number 0989
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to adopt 0-LS0618\B, Utermohle,
3/11/97, as a work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked how the language in Section 1, which
addresses only a portion of the law, accomplishes the purposes set
forth in the Sectional Analysis.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called upon Catherine Reardon to respond.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked what the intention was with the
modification.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said the intention was to keep convicted felons
who currently hold a lower class of license from upgrading to a
guide.
Number 1077
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED), said the
DCED now administers the guide licensing program in the absence of
a guide board.
MS. REARDON said Section 1 is at the DCED's request. She
explained, "The portion of the law that you don't see there said
that a person who has been convicted of a felony involving a crime
against a person, I believe it is within the last five years, is
ineligible for a guide license. Then this section (b) you see here
was a transition exemption to that prohibition against people who
committed felonies in the last five years. And what it says is
that people who already had their guide licenses, under the
previous guide law, could keep them even if they did have a felony
within the last five years, so that someone who was holding an
assistant guide license wouldn't get it taken away ... as a result
of the new guide law."
MS. REARDON said the wording of this transition, however, was such
that it also applied to someone with an assistant guide license
under the old law, who was applying to take an exam to upgrade to
be a registered guide or a master guide. That person could have
applied, even if they had a felony conviction within the last five
years.
MS. REARDON noted that some applicants for the upcoming test have
substantial felony backgrounds. "And we felt that while it was
okay to keep them at that same level of assistant guide, held
harmless by this transition to a new law, that probably it would be
better to wait 'til they've been clean of felonies for at least
five years before allowing them to upgrade," she explained. "So
that was our purpose in requesting that amendment."
Number 1190
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he had no objection so long as there is
a time limit, so that felons who have mended their ways and have a
clean record can go on in their chosen profession, and so long as
it is limited to crimes against persons.
MS. REARDON read from the applicable statute and commented: "It
says that someone is ineligible for a license if they've committed
a felony within the last five years, any kind of felony - I
misspoke - or a felony offense against the person, a crime of
violence against a person, as defined in AS 11.41, within the last
ten years. So ... any kind of felony for five years, a crime
against a person for ten years."
Number 1242
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said many guides in Alaska had been convicted
of illegal hunting, wanton waste or other crimes relating to fish
and game resources. "We've even had State Troopers that do that,"
she added. She asked if this bill allows them to continue with
their licenses.
MS. REARDON responded that Section 1 attempts to tighten up on
people with felony convictions. It excludes some people with
felony convictions from being able to upgrade, which they otherwise
could do without the amendment.
Number 1293
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked why a big game guide with a felony
offense should be able to continue guiding, whereas a class-A
assistant guide could not upgrade.
MS. REARDON said that was a policy choice the legislature
apparently made when it passed the guide law last year, to have
this new felony restriction but hold harmless people who held
licenses previously. She was trying to fill in a little gap that
perhaps the legislature had not thought of. She was not suggesting
getting rid of (b) altogether, and not holding them harmless,
because she believed the legislature had already decided that.
Number 1380
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES did not recall details of the final guide
bill passed the previous year. She asked, "As I'm understanding
correctly, what we've said as a legislative body, that if you have
a felony conviction and you are a registered guide, you can
continue pursuit of your occupation? Is that after five years? Or
do you just continue on?"
MS. REARDON replied that people who already had convictions before
the law came about get to carry on. New people are blocked from
entry or from renewal of their licenses.
Number 1429
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES suggested that set up two separate classes of
people, those with felony convictions and those without. She
believed that was wrong. She did not believe guides should be
given more leeway with their felony convictions than class-A
assistant guides were given.
MS. REARDON responded that it applies the same way to assistant,
class-A and registered guides. It just has to do with whether a
person held that license before the new law or was a brand new
entrant coming in. The exception in Section 1 only applies to
convictions prior to the new law. "If you're one of these guides
who held a license under the old law, and you're convicted
tomorrow, you won't be able to renew your license," she added.
Number 1496
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she had read articles about crimes
committed by guides and noted that class-A assistant guides work
under a guide. "So they may be working under a felon, and they,
because they've had a past conviction, they can't move up to be a
felon with a felon," she stated. "There's something basically
wrong with that."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether Section 5 came from the
department.
MS. REARDON said only Section 1 came from the department.
Number 1546
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained that the concern was whether to make it
retroactive. As the argument could be made that it was paying
twice for the same crime, it was not done retroactively.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN pointed out that a registered guide is criminally
and civilly liable for everything that guide does in the field.
The way the guide law is written, guides are just as responsible
for actions by assistants as they are for their own actions. The
bill tightens this up so that assistant guides who are felons do
not become guides.
Number 1620
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES mentioned debates through the years over
guiding. She believed there was always an attempt by registered
guides to ensure people did not challenge them for areas. She
expressed concern that, felon or otherwise, there was a problem
with this section.
Number 1645
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted there was a motion on the floor. He asked
if there was further discussion or any objection. There being
none, 0-LS0618\B, Utermohle, 3/11/97, was adopted as a work draft.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that Kurt West was present to explain
guide use areas.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she would not support the bill if it
expanded the guide areas, which she believed to be exclusive use
areas.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN responded that they are not exclusive. Litigated
in the Owsichek decision, exclusive use areas had been eliminated.
Although guides are limited to three guide use areas, those are not
exclusive. Guides can move from year to year into those areas.
Number 1730
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether she could go in and guide in
those same areas.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said yes. Anyone can guide in any of the areas by
simply registering into the area.
Number 1770
KURT WEST, Licensing Supervisor, Division of Occupational
Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, came
forward with a large map showing boundaries for individual guide
use areas and Unified Coding Units (UCUs). The building blocks of
the guide use areas, UCUs had already been established by the
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and used for harvest data for
over 20 years. These tended to follow drainages.
MR. WEST said the Big Game Commercial Services Board had attempted
to follow the UCUs in establishing use areas. However, that was
not always the case. There were instances, such as in Units 9, 26,
24 and 19, which contained some of the larger parks, where federal
agencies had been unwilling to budge on boundaries relating to the
state's ability to follow the UCUs. Consequently, some land
ownership did not fall within a guide use area.
MR. WEST, using the map, cited an example where Doyon land may have
extended, through oversight, into a guide use area, with the board
subsequently granting use on a small piece of land that otherwise
would not be used.
Number 1877
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that the proposed committee substitute
only addressed federal land.
MR. WEST said this only affected a dozen individuals, who received
land authorization, looked at their boundaries and discovered those
boundaries did not follow the land management boundaries.
Number 1897
MS. REARDON explained that the old statute allowed the guide board
to set up the guide use areas through regulation. The guide board
had a regulation that said, "You're limited to three areas unless
you need a little piece of a fourth one because it will be
unutilized otherwise."
MS. REARDON said under the new law, the guide use area system was
put into statute. The board was abolished, and the DCED has no
discretion to adjust the use area system. She said that is fine.
However, when the legislature passed the new law, they decided
three areas was the limit. There was no exception for this
situation. "And the sponsor, through this bill, is trying to
recreate that possibility of getting a little piece of a fourth
area that otherwise wouldn't be used," she explained.
Number 1936
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked the size of the largest area that would be
added on to a guide use area.
MR. WEST did not know the square mileage.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether the additional areas were fairly
small.
MR. WEST said yes. In some instances, it was an access point. He
was aware of a couple of instances where someone had an extension
of authorization into another use area. It just happened that
within that extension was the access to their entire area. This
included a landing strip or boat access. However, Mr. West was
unaware of anyone receiving a large portion of another area.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked about the possibility of this being
perceived as a land grab.
MR. WEST replied that it did not appear to work that way, due to
there only being 10 or 12 people who came before the board and
applied for that exemption.
Number 2018
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE requested that if the DCED had a map
delineating who is affected by whom, and in what areas of the
state, he would like to see it. Mr. West's map showed one section.
However, 12 areas were apparently affected.
MS. REARDON responded, "It's not like we did a survey of the whole
state and decided where it could happen. Instead, guides would ask
for a fourth area, and it would be considered by the board. So if
we show you which 12 qualified, at least we could tell you where
those were located, those overlaps."
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said that would be helpful. Guiding in his
area was very active. He wanted to see the implications in his
district and others.
MS. REARDON pointed out that the state's granting of a guide use
area to a guide does not mean that the landowner, whether it is
federal, private or Native land, must allow that person to guide
there. The landowner still has the right to say nobody may guide
there or to specify how many.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said he did not need to see names. He just
wanted to see how it all works.
Number 2120
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said when he first served on the Big Game
Commercial Services Board, they had just finished the mapping
process. He asked Mr. West to explain why the state guide use
areas did not necessarily line up with the federal areas.
MR. WEST said they did for the most part. At a "push-shove
meeting" in Fairbanks in September 1992, the National Park Service
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service absolutely did not want to allow
boundaries for several guide use areas to differ from what they had
traditionally used for their concession permits. For the most
part, the majority of the state conformed to the UCU-building-block
method of creating those use areas, "but there were a few instances
where they would not budge."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN emphasized this would simply allow use of areas
that would otherwise be unused by hunters. Those holding federal
permits are the only ones allowed to hunt there, and the boundary
does not coincide with their state areas. "So this allows them to
access that little chunk of federal area that didn't quite jive
with the lines," he said, calling it the "weasel clause."
Number 2209
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked how many permit holders there
are in Alaska for big game guiding.
MR. WEST replied that there are about 500 registered and master
guides, about 330 of whom are active. He said that translates into
about 750 guide use area permits. "So there is a lot of overlap,
a lot of joint use of areas," he added.
Number 2233
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked how many were nonresidents, whether
it was 50 percent, for example.
MR. WEST said he did not have that figure. His guess was 40 out of
that. [Secretary's note: Confirmed with Mr. West by telephone
3/19/97 that this refers to individuals, not a percentage.]
Number 2245
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said that is a large percentage. She asked
whether there is any way to curtail that legally. She commented
that that is a lot of revenue leaving the state.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said one provision he was proud of in the previous
year's legislation was the loosening of requirements for assistant
guides. Many rural Alaskans who might make excellent assistant
guides could not pass the test. Now, guides could hire an
assistant guide just on a recommendation. Guides are legally
responsible, civilly and criminally, for all their actions in the
field anyway. Nor does the state tell a cabinet maker, for
example, whom to hire as shop help. Co-Chairman Ogan suspected
many more people were guiding than before because of this.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said over time, people would step up to the
plate as they realize these opportunities exist.
Number 2299
MS. REARDON, acknowledging she was not an attorney, mentioned local
hire constitutional issues. The current legislation requires the
DCED to charge twice as much for a nonresident guide license. For
the first time, the DCED must identify who is a resident and who is
not. She suggested even that could be skating a line. She noted
there are, however, techniques such as requirements for having held
an Alaskan hunting license for a certain amount of time or that
type of experience that could be required.
Number 2346
CAPTAIN JOEL HARD, Commander, B Detachment, Division of Fish and
Wildlife Protection, Department of Public Safety, testified via
teleconference. Referring to Section 1 of the proposed committee
substitute, he said it allows people who were grandfathered in to
upgrade. Although not part of the previous year's process, he
supposed the grandfather issue was a legal issue brought forward by
the Department of Law, as was generally the case.
CAPTAIN HARD said Section 2 is the most important to his division
from an enforcement perspective. It returns to statute the
prohibition against big game guides personally hunting while
clients are in the field. It lessens the opportunity for unethical
or illegal activities. It also makes over-limit violations such as
using another person's tags more difficult. It would improve his
division's ability to enforce complaints arising from guided hunts.
CAPTAIN HARD referred to Section 5 and said whether guides have
three areas or four is of little consequence to his division, so
long as they have the proper registration.
Number 2443
WAYNE WOODS testified via teleconference. He said most of the
guides in the area, including himself, were not prepared to address
the bill, as it was last-minute.
MR. WOODS said transporters remaining in the field with clients and
taking game is not addressed in HB 151. However, that was the
overriding concern of registered guides the previous year, with
transporters not being regulated to the degree that guides are.
None of the guides he had spoken with oppose closing the loophole
of guides taking game in the field with clients. However, they
want transporters included in this category.
MR. WOODS advised that he did not have a copy of the committee
substitute.
TAPE 97-25, SIDE B
Number 0021
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained that the new committee substitute only
includes federal lands, and it tightens the language. He said
through an oversight, the drafter had said guide use areas, plural,
which might be conceived to mean they could get more than one
additional area.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said there is language in the new committee
substitute, just for the guide, for when an area would otherwise
remain unused by a registered guide because the boundaries of the
guide use areas do not coincide with boundaries of federal big game
concession or permit areas. It would only be for one guide, and it
would only be if it did not coincide with the federal big game
concession or permit areas. It was basically the old "H clause" or
"weasel clause" in the regulations.
Number 0082
MR. WOODS said he and most of his fellow guides wanted guide use
areas changed to align with game management unit sub-units. He
believed that would alleviate many problems that operators see in
the field as far as avoiding increased competition with
transporters or resident hunters.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked what "H" or "weasel" sections were.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied that was lingo relating to the old Big
Game Commercial Services Board regulations. The "H clause" was
essentially the same as Section 5 of HB 151, relating to weaseling
into a little more of an area.
Number 0158
GORDON BISSELL testified via teleconference. He expressed concern
over how this was put out to people in the guiding community. Few
he had spoken to were even aware of some pending bills and
regulations. He suggested precluding convicted felons from holding
any guide license until passage of at least three to five years, in
which they showed they had changed their ways, whether they were
registered guides, class-As or assistants. He believed felons had
"screwed up somewhere along the road" and should take time to
reflect on the way they live their lives.
MR. BISSELL expressed concern over how guide use areas are set up
from the ADF&G's UCU maps. The previous year, he and three other
guides, as well as two transporters and numerous resident hunters,
had hunted in an area that he had as a guide use area. That area
measures approximately 40 miles by 10 to 15 miles. Due to
regulations last year, he was forced to try to make a living out of
this area, he said.
MR. BISSELL believes guide use areas should coincide with the game
management sub-units. This would allow guides who encounter
additional activity in one area to spread their activity elsewhere.
MR. BISSELL noted that this does not address tour guides, which he
sees "cropping up, predominantly in the Talkeetna Mountains."
Referring to the taking of game by guides, Mr. Bissell said he does
not see transporters being put to task over this. If it affects
game guides, it should affect everyone equally, including
transporters and tour guides. Game guides are being singled out
and heavily regulated.
Number 0292
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Kurt West to comment on the transporter
issue. He understood that currently transporters cannot take game
nor assist in any way while they are in the field.
MR. WEST said licensing and regulation of transporters has not
changed. They are allowed to transport clients from point A to
point B, but not to accompany them into the field nor stay with
them unless it occurs at a permanent lodge, cabin or boat owned by
the transporter.
Number 0317
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether transporters were transporting
for specific guides or just dropping people off.
MR. WEST said both. Some guides use a commercial transporter.
Some do their own flying or boating. And many clients, both
resident and nonresident, use a commercial transporter on their
own, without a guide.
Number 0346
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that the transporter statute is AS
08.54.650(c). He read: "A transporter may not provide big game
hunting services without holding an appropriate license." He
believed that transporters are not precluded from hunting while
they are in the field. He suggested it might be worth tacking that
onto the bill.
Number 0430
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN, noting Representative Joule's absence, announced
he would hold HB 151 over in respect to Representative Joule's
concerns.
HB 138 - BOARD OF STORAGE TANK ASSISTANCE
Number 0476
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said the next order of business was House Bill No.
138, "An Act relating to the Board of Storage Tank Assistance; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0493
RANDY WELKER, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Legislative Agencies and Offices, came forward to present the bill.
He said HB 138 is sunset legislation requested by the chairman of
the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, which introduced all
the sunset legislation this year.
MR. WELKER said HB 138 is the final version of the previous
session's bill. The Board of Storage Tank Assistance is in its
final year of wind-down, with a statutory expiration date of June
30, 1996. However, statute provides the board one year from that
date to complete its affairs.
MR. WELKER said the audit report issued in 1995 addressed the
original sunset. It recommended continuation to the year 2000,
reflected in Section 1 of the bill.
Number 0558
MR. WELKER said Section 2 implements a recommendation to change the
make-up of the board. They saw a need for a public member without
a financial interest in the storage tank business. Section 2
places a public member on the board and removes the commissioner of
the Department of Public Transportation and Public Facilities, thus
maintaining the same size of board.
MR. WELKER said significant issues face the state relating to
underground storage tanks. There are federal deadlines coming up
that will be critical to deal with in the next few years. A sunset
date of the year 2000 will allow another look at the board
operations after some of those dates have passed, to determine
whether there is a continued need.
Number 0621
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked about the board composition.
MR. WELKER said statute requires that all the other members of the
board have some knowledge of, or relationship with, the storage
tank industry. They believe a public member is important as well.
Number 0653
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked what would happen if the board were
discontinued.
MR. WELKER said the need for funding to bring storage tanks into
compliance with federal standards far outstrips appropriations
available to date. The board prioritizes funding decisions when an
appropriation is made, allocating between loan programs, for
example, which had participated in establishing a rating system to
prioritize the need for assistance. In that way, more serious
needs are met first.
MR. WELKER said as they approach the deadline for complying with
federal requirements, which he believes is December 1998, it is
uncertain what enforcement actions the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) envisions. The board could play a hands-on policy
role in dealing with implementation of the EPA deadlines. Without
the board itself, some of those responsibilities would probably
fall back on the department.
Number 0730
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN inquired about the zero fiscal note and asked who
is paying for this.
MR. WELKER said he would defer to the department.
Number 0789
CYNTHIA PRING-HAM, Environmental Specialist III, Storage Tank
Program, Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC), came forward to testify. She
said if the board were abolished, the ADEC would have to accomplish
all the tasks itself. The ADEC already had funding in its FY 98
budget and would not incur additional cost.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN suggested there should be a cost associated with
extending the board five more years.
MS. PRING-HAM said the ADEC collects registration fees of $500 per
tank, which is incorporated into the storage tank assistant funds
allocated yearly by the legislature.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if that is a dedicated fund.
MS. PRING-HAM said no.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if this is paid through program receipts.
MS. PRING-HAM said yes, but they do not get the fees directly. The
fees go into a fund and are appropriated later into the storage
tank assistance funds.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that the bill has no House Finance Committee
referral.
Number 0877
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether the 470 fund provides the
funding.
MS. PRING-HAM said no, it is part of the general fund.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether she knew the loan default rate.
MS. PRING-HAM said she could try to get that information. She
advised that she was acting on behalf of someone else.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed with Co-Chairman Ogan that it seemed a
fiscal note should be attached.
Number 0931
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked what the board does in rural areas of
Alaska.
MS. PRING-HAM said the board has two main responsibilities. First,
they determine and allocate grant funds available for cleanups of
underground storage tanks, closures and upgrades at those
facilities. "So if they were on our list of applicants for those
three series of funds, then the board would ... develop a priority
listing," she said. Second, the board settles disputes between
owners and operators. They act as a liaison between owners and
operators and the ADEC.
Number 0997
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether the ADEC has someone monitoring
tanks on a routine basis.
MS. PRING-HAM said no. Owners and operators submit an application
for grant money to do closures, upgrades or cleanups. They fill
out a preliminary risk evaluation form which has a point system
relating to certain criteria. From that, a yearly ranking is
determined. Whoever has the most points gets the money first.
Number 1073
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN reiterated his concerns about the fiscal note. He
asked how often the board meets.
MS. PRING-HAM said four times.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether they provided their own
transportation, hotel costs and so forth.
MS. PRING-HAM said it is in the program's budget as part of the
storage tank assistance fund's operating cost.
Number 1125
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called for an at-ease at 2:29 p.m. He called the
meeting back to order at 2:30 p.m. He asked Randy Welker to
address the fiscal note.
MR. WELKER said he did not believe the department's fiscal note was
accurate because the cost of travel and meetings had a fiscal
impact on the state.
Number 1193
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said they had been told the 470 fund was not
the funding mechanism. However, a letter in the committee packet
dated September 19, 1995, part of the Audit Report for the
department and signed by Mr. Welker, stated on page 3 that
appropriations are made from the mitigation account fund and from
tank registration receipts. He suggested the 470 fund therefore
came into play here.
MR. WELKER said he did not know "which part of the nickel it is"
but that it is partially funded through that, as well as through
program receipts from some of the fees.
Number 1240
REPRESENTATIVE referred to page 7 of the same letter, which
indicated some $54 million is needed for eligible applicants. He
said at the low funding level of the previous year, that was a 19-
year program. He asked, "Is it your understanding that if this
sort of thing does not continue, either at 1.9 or some other
funding mechanism rate, that the state will be having to bear these
costs?"
MR. WELKER said the uncertainty was that nobody was sure what
action the EPA might take when the deadline comes about for
compliance with those federal regulations. He did not believe
anyone could say yet what the ramifications might be. The $54
million was what the board struggled to prioritize from the
applications.
Number 1306
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it could then even be worse than that.
MR. WELKER believed most of the programs had a deadline for
application and that all those deadlines had passed. He did not
believe anything had been extended that would broaden those
application periods. The $54 million was the need identified
through that application process at the time.
Number 1325
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated the remaining work would take a
number of years. He asked what was happening to leaks now. He
also asked whether Mr. Welker had a feel for how much might be
defaulted or repaid on loans.
MR. WELKER suggested those would be better answered by ADEC
personnel. He is the "outside auditor" looking in at the board's
operations.
Number 1479
TERRY RENNER, Past President, Alaska Underground Tank Owners and
Operators (AUTOO), came forward to testify. The AUTOO had worked
on the bill with representatives beginning in 1989. Through a two-
year process, the legislature had come up with HB 220, which put
the board in statute.
MR. RENNER said tank registration fees throughout the United States
are $50 to $100. In Alaska, they are up to $500 per tank, which
the AUTOO believes shows a willingness to contribute. At the time
of the original bill, owners faced a deadline for mandated
insurance requiring a $1 million policy. However, with a polluted
site, no policy could be obtained at any cost. Owners had hoped
this would "appease some of these federal mandates" on insurance.
Passage of the bill had helped in that regard.
MR. RENNER advised that when that bill passed the House, it carried
a user fee, a one-cent tax. Later, the Senate made that a straight
$10 million appropriation, lowered by the governor to $6 million.
Since then, it has gone before the legislature yearly for a general
appropriation.
Number 1599
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether the board acts as a mediator between
tank owners and the ADEC.
MR. RENNER said yes. If disagreement remains, the matter could be
brought to the legislature or the Governor's office. However, he
did not believe that had ever been necessary.
Number 1667
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK asked Mr. Renner's opinion about
adding a public member.
MR. RENNER said he thought it would be better.
Number 1750
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether Mr. Renner had a feel for the
board's expenses.
MR. RENNER said he had heard it was somewhere just over $100,000.
He believed tank registration fees brought in about $300,000, which
went into the general fund.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested the fiscal note should probably show
both amounts.
Number 1833
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced he would hold the bill and research the
fiscal note question.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the $54 million required. He
asked whether Mr. Renner had a feel, from his past position, about
loan failure rates related to fixing tanks.
MR. RENNER said loans in the program were for upgrading tanks. A
large part is grants because of high loan failure rates, such as
those in the Matanuska-Susitna area. It is cheaper for the state
to make grants than to watch over those loans. The legislature had
decided to assist tank owners because the alternative was having
tank owners go out of business, with the state cleaning up anyway.
At least this employed people throughout the state.
MR. RENNER said there are better cleanup methods all the time.
Already, there is a site-specific assessment relating to drinking
water sources. He expects the $54 million figure to be cut by more
than a third right now, and possibly more in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested there are alternative methods such
as aeration, use of "bugs" and so forth.
MR. RENNER agreed. Referring to the $54 million, he indicated
people had overstated the amounts required because "you couldn't go
back to the well twice."
Number 2042
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON asked about new technology to neutralize
spills, for example.
MR. RENNER said there are chemical washes, depending on the area
and the pollutants in the soil. He said he is not an expert.
There are also "bugs that will start eating these hydrocarbons and
such." He said people with more expertise could be brought in for
a future meeting.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON noted that Larry Dinneen had informed him of a
new process. He suggested Mr. Dinneen speak to the committee. He
himself was involved when the federal law first came out. With the
tremendous number of tanks in the state, he believes it is
important to ensure they are all cleaned up.
Number 2210
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether this covers village tanks for
diesel.
MR. RENNER said it is an underground storage tank program that
includes tanks in Nome, Kotzebue and other sites throughout the
state. In the Interior, there are many above-ground tanks,
however.
Number 2287
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON believed there exists a comprehensive study on
major fuel storage facilities throughout Alaska. Estimates to
upgrade and repair existing above-ground storage tanks exceed $200
million. Much of that is for fuel storage in villages, as well as
for fuel tanks at airports with Arctic conditions.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said he believed that estimate is for upgrading
tanks, with the environmental mitigation another $200-to-300
million.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2368
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 2:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|