Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/28/2003 02:05 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 28, 2003
2:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Hugh Fate, Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Cheryll Heinze
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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."
- MOVED CSHB 191(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 208
"An Act relating to hunting on the same day airborne; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 78
"An Act relating to adoption and use of a unified permit
application form by the natural resource agencies; and repealing
the Environmental Procedures Coordination Act."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 191
SHORT TITLE:COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/12/03 0513 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/12/03 0513 (H) FSH, RES, JUD, FIN
03/12/03 0513 (H) FN1: ZERO(DFG)
03/12/03 0513 (H) FN2: ZERO(DEC)
03/12/03 0513 (H) FN3: (DNR)
03/12/03 0513 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/17/03 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
03/17/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/17/03 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/18/03 (H) RES AT 12:30 PM CAPITOL 124
03/18/03 (H) <Pending Referral> -- Meeting
Canceled --
03/26/03 0638 (H) FSH RPT 2DP 2DNP 1NR 2AM
03/26/03 0638 (H) DP: HEINZE, WILSON; DNP:
GUTTENBERG,
03/26/03 0638 (H) BERKOWITZ; NR: SAMUELS; AM:
OGG,
03/26/03 0638 (H) SEATON
03/26/03 0639 (H) FN1: ZERO(DFG)
03/26/03 0639 (H) FN2: ZERO(DEC)
03/26/03 0639 (H) FN3: (DNR)
03/26/03 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
03/26/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/26/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/26/03 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/28/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/28/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
04/11/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/11/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
04/16/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/16/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/16/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/23/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/23/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/23/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/25/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/25/03 (H) -- Meeting Postponed to Mon.
April 28 --
WITNESS REGISTER
DOUGLAS MERTZ
Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concern that proposed CSHB 191,
Version 4/22/2003, jeopardizes locally enforceable policies, in
particular.
MARTY RUTHERFORD, Consultant
to the Administration
and to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about proposed CSHB 191,
Version 4/22/2003; explained Amendment 1.
PATRICK GALVIN, Petroleum Land Manager
Division of Oil and Gas
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted Ms. Rutherford in answering
questions relating to proposed CSHB 191, Version 4/22/2003.
BRECK TOSTEVIN, Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on proposed CSHB 191,
Version 4/22/2003; explained Amendment 1.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-35, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR HUGH FATE called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. Representatives Fate, Masek,
Heinze, Lynn, Morgan, Guttenberg, and Kerttula were present at
the call to order. Representatives Wolf and Gatto arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 191-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
[Contains discussion of SB 143, the companion bill]
CHAIR FATE announced that the committee would hear 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."
[HB 191 was sponsored by the House Rules Standing Committee by
request of the governor.]
Number 0085
CHAIR FATE announced that before the committee was the proposed
committee substitute (CS) labeled 03-0069 bil2.doc, 4/22/2003,
1:30 pm [which had been discussed at the previous hearing].
CHAIR FATE informed the committee that although he'd closed
public testimony, the committee would hear from Mr. Mertz, who'd
waited to testify previously. In addition, an amendment had
been requested by the City & Borough of Juneau (CBJ) and another
had been prepared by the administration.
Number 0278
DOUGLAS MERTZ, Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory
Council, told members:
The only real point that I wanted to make to you is
that we have tracked the changes in the various
versions of the CS as they've been developed over the
last week or week and a half, and compared their
provisions with the actual provisions of the local
enforceable standards, which are available on line, to
see whether the optimistic view of them that the
administration ... testifiers are giving us is
justified.
And, in fact, what we have concluded is that almost
all of the current locally enforceable policies would
be in jeopardy. And the ones that are most important
to the local people - the ones that affect subsistence
resources, commercial fishery resources, other aspects
of habitat preservation - would almost certainly fall
if this language were enacted as it is.
Now, we appreciate what they are telling us about
their intentions as drafters, but if it doesn't match
the language of the bill, it doesn't work. So what we
are suggesting is that the committee make its own
decision on the policy question. Do you want to
continue the present system of letting local coastal
districts have local enforceable policies? Do you
want to let it continue with maybe some tweaks? Do
you want to basically do away with that power at all?
If it's the last, the present bill might work. If
it's one of the first two - if you want to continue
some of that authority - you really need to tell the
drafters that that is your decision and have it
redrafted, probably by [Legislation Legal and Research
Services], which can clearly and unequivocally match
... the words in the bill with that intention.
Number 0451
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA requested examples of specific
enforceable policies that districts are concerned they will
lose.
MR. MERTZ answered that almost all have language - sometimes
specific, sometimes general - about preserving critical habitat
areas, which typically has to do with fish-rearing habitat for
subsistence and commercial uses. Because they'd come within the
prohibition on duplicating the permitting authority of the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), those probably
would fall. He suggested that is probably the most critical
area of all.
Number 0523
MR. MERTZ, in reply to a question from Representative
Guttenberg, explained that under the bill DEC and DNR basically
would continue the functions they've had all along, including
those under the ACMP [Alaska Coastal Management Program],
statewide and nationwide considerations within their purview,
and anything else they'd be doing anyway such as DEC wastewater
discharge permitting. However, they wouldn't pick up the lost
local enforceable policies; those would drop out.
Number 0599
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG mentioned the regional coastal
management groups and the proposed elimination of the Alaska
Coastal Policy Council (ACPC). He asked whether Mr. Mertz sees
those as vital to local input and inquired, "How do you see
being able to interact with them?"
MR. MERTZ answered:
I am aware that many of the local coastal districts
believe that the continued existence of the [ACPC] is
vital, although I will have to tell you, to me, it is
not as vital as continuation of the local enforceable
policies. It gives everybody some unease that,
essentially, DNR, in most instances, would become the
final arbiter, and they wouldn't have the statewide
coastal policy council as, in a sense, the voice of
coastal districts ... and interests in general.
Number 0686
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said as she reads it, DEC is "completely
broken out," that there is no need for or envisioning of DEC's
participation in coastal management anymore. She asked Mr.
Mertz whether he reads it that way as well.
MR. MERTZ answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked what Mr. Mertz thinks this will
mean for communities with activities or permits at stake that
are "DEC-oriented," as well as other portions of projects that
will be part of coastal management. She asked whether the
result will be two disparate permitting paths.
MR. MERTZ replied:
There will be the traditional DEC permitting path.
And then the question is, what happens on ... a local
level. In the local areas that ... have planning and
zoning powers - home rule boroughs, first class cities
- then there would be one based on those powers, but
it would be different from DEC because it's different
permitting authority. And anything that the CSRA
[Coastal Resource Service Area], the local coastal
district, could do would be extremely limited. And in
terms of the DEC process, they basically would be able
to comment like any of the rest of us - but no more
weight than any of the rest of us.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether the problem is that now
the permitting process is starting to be broken apart; rather
than streamlining, now there will be not only DEC coastal
management, but also "the ever-confusing ... Title 29 municipal
authorities, which are so varied across the state, and which are
very difficult to mesh with any kind of permitting."
Number 0835
MR. MERTZ replied:
It is worth bearing in mind that one of the original
purposes of this program, this statute, was to
coordinate, to streamline, to make it simpler for
everybody involved. And ... in attempting to remove
some of ... the features of the program that increase
costs, increase delay, we may be tossing out some of
the streamlining at the same time and bringing back
some of the confusion and multi-channel permitting
that existed before the ACMP.
Number 0883
CHAIR FATE explained to Marty Rutherford that there had been a
real concern, because the local policy councils have been
deleted [in the legislation], that local districts would have no
enforceability and would lose the ability to make changes,
especially in areas of environmental concern. He asked Ms.
Rutherford whether she had dealt with this, and requested that
she respond to the concern.
Number 0962
MARTY RUTHERFORD, Consultant to the Administration and to the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), responded that districts
will be able to have local enforceable policies except
pertaining to activities subject to DEC's air, land, and water
quality standards. Noting that nine examples had been prepared
at the committee's request, she referred to a document titled,
"Examples of District Enforceable Policies that meet the
requirements of CS FOR HB 191/SB 143 (RESOURCES), AS
46.40.070(aa)(2)(A)-(B)(section 14)."
MS. RUTHERFORD also acknowledged a concern that local
municipalities won't be able to continue to implement ordinances
that deal with air, land, and water quality standards.
Referring to page 19, Section 38, paragraph (3) of the proposed
CS, she said municipalities won't be negatively affected
whatsoever, since it says that nothing in this chapter shall be
construed to "(3) diminish the zoning or planning authority of
municipalities under AS 29." She offered her belief that local
enforceable policies are protected "in most areas except for the
air, land, and water quality standards," but that "separate from
this bill, local municipalities - Title 29 entities,
corporations - will be able to maintain their local ordinances
dealing with air, land, and water quality."
Number 1098
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested that in Section 14, however,
it isn't just DEC standards that the local enforceable policies
run up against. Rather, it is anything that addresses a matter
regulated or authorized by state or federal law unless [the
enforceable policies relate specifically to a matter of local
concern]; she noted that it is narrowed to a local concern with
a specific coastal use or resource in the defined portion of the
district's coastal zone. She requested confirmation that
potentially it's much broader than DEC.
MS. RUTHERFORD replied:
There is a test imbedded in Section 14. You are
correct. ... Let me be very clear here. ... Activities
subject to air, land, and water quality standards ...
are completely excluded from ... local enforceable
policies. However, for anything else, whether there
is state or federal law dealing with it - if, in fact,
you're going to promulgate or develop local
enforceable policies that address issues that are
dealt with in state or federal law - then there's this
test that you must go to.
Number 1194
MS. RUTHERFORD referred to the document setting out nine
examples and said:
These all were pulled from district policies. I might
note that there were situations where we refined the
language of existing enforceable policies to meet the
test in Section 14. ... And I think it's really
important to note that they are both addressing
specific locations within particular districts and
generally defined portions ... of a district coastal
zone. So they are broad. ...
As you can see, it allows for quite a lot of breadth
in local enforceable policies, even under this bill.
These were created by the team that I have with me
here today, and have had at previous meetings. And
... after we went through and developed these that we
thought, ... in a fashion, that met the test within
Section 14, we did clear them ... with the Department
of Law and with the chief of staff, where we got
approval. So these are a reflection of what the
administration feels. They're very broad. They allow
a great deal of flexibility within local enforceable
policies. They just simply require that they be more
concise. ... You make the argument that they are
addressing areas that are sensitive to development -
all the other elements in the test.
Number 1294
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked where the changes had been made to
the policies to make them meet this test, and what kind of
changes those were.
MS. RUTHERFORD referred to the third example under "Specific
Location Policies" in the document that sets out nine examples.
It read [original punctuation provided]:
3. Floathomes shall be recognized as an approved use
of private and state tidelands in all residential
zones identified on Map 3-B where:
1) Adequate sewage treatment (marine sanitation
devices) and/or tidal flushing exists;
2) The floathome is moored in at least 15 feet of
water at mean low water;
3) The presence of a floathome will not
jeopardize access to another's upland property; and
4) the floathome is not an obstruction to use of
navigable waters.
MS. RUTHERFORD, recalling that the foregoing is a Ketchikan
district policy and noting that changes would be to make
something more specific, if appropriate, explained in this
instance that the enforceable policy already references
residential zones. "The only thing that we noted is that it
would be linked to a mapped location, say, of ... where those
residential zones would be," she said. "Other than that,
nothing was changed in that particular policy."
Number 1373
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA brought attention to the reference to
sewage treatment and marine sanitation devices in the third
example just discussed. She said DEC clearly regulates those
and asked, "Does the district have the authority now to be able
to do this when you've broken DEC out?"
MS. RUTHERFORD replied that it just notes that [the district]
will allow, under its enforceable policies, float homes with
adequate sewage treatment, whether approved by DEC or simply
tidal flushing. She added, "It just makes reference to it; it
doesn't mean that they're going to second-guess the quality
standards that are imposed by DEC."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether ultimately DEC makes all
those decisions.
MS. RUTHERFORD said she wasn't sure DEC required certain types
of sewage treatment on float homes. She added, "Obviously,
there are situations where there are none required. They just
have to assure that there is enough tidal action to make ... it
safe." She went on to say that if there were a sewage treatment
facility regulated by DEC required, then DEC would make a
determination itself as to whether that meets its standard.
Number 1470
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK suggested that Section 14 of the bill says
the plan must meet DNR regulations and not address issues
already regulated by the state unless it is a specific local
concern. She asked whether that is the proper reading.
MS. RUTHERFORD answered that she believed so.
Number 1587
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to the "DEC breakout" and asked
what the interaction will be. For example, if a project has DEC
permits and other permits at stake, won't there be two
permitting processes going on? Or is it envisioned that the
consistency determination will bring in DEC so that everybody is
at the table?
MS. RUTHERFORD requested that Patrick Galvin, past director of
[the Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC)] join her at
the table. She then said:
The answer is that there will be a consistency review
where DEC will be brought to the table, ...
particularly if there are other local enforceable
policies pertinent to that project that are outside
the parameters of activities regulated by DEC's air,
land, and water quality standards.
Number 1639
PATRICK GALVIN, Petroleum Land Manager, Division of Oil and Gas
Department of Natural Resources, explained:
What you have to recognize is, right now, when we talk
about a consistency review, we talk about it as a
coordinated review. And in theory, at least, the
permit issues that each of the departments has to make
will be made simultaneously with the consistency
determination. However, that's not the way it works
in practice on a project-by-project basis. ...
The distinction is that ... today when we do a
consistency review, DEC has to fully decide its
permitting decisions before the consistency
determination can be issued. Under the bill, while
the permitting will still be coordinated as best it
can be through the consistency review, and DEC's
permits will be brought in, the consistency
determination could proceed along its own timeframe.
And ... if DEC's permit has an issue that comes up
that's specific to the DEC issue that doesn't pertain
to other coastal-management issues, then the
consistency determination can proceed and conclude
without having to wait until those DEC issues are
resolved. ...
The reason why the DEC provisions are still considered
enforceable policies of the program - rather than just
saying, OK, why don't we eliminate the DEC problem by
not having the DEC standards apply - is because we
want to have the DEC provisions apply to federal
projects, OCS [outer continental shelf] projects. We
don't want to lose that application. Even though
DEC's permits are still required within the state and
there's no real value added having them in that
process, we want to make sure that those standards ...
still apply to offshore.
Number 1755
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA began discussion of Amendment 1. Noting
that there had been an amendment to [SB 143, the companion
bill], she asked whether there was a plan to offer the same one
here, and whether the intention was to try to bring [DEC] "back
on" to those projects. Amendment 1 read [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 8, line 10:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 8, line 13 following "purposes." through line 22:
Delete all material and insert:
"For those purposes only,
(1) the issuance of permits, certifications,
approvals, and authorizations by the Department of
Environmental Conservation establishes consistency
with the Alaska coastal management program for
those activities of a proposed project subject to
those permits, certifications, approvals, and
authorizations;
(2) for a consistency review of an activity that
does not require a Department of Environmental
Conservation permit, certification, approval, or
authorization because the activity is a federal
activity or the activity is located on federal lands
or the federal outer continental shelf, consistency
with AS 46.03, AS 46.04, AS 46.09, and AS 46.14 and
the regulations adopted under those statutes shall be
established on the basis of whether the Department of
Environmental Conservation finds that the activity
satisfies the requirements of those statutes and
regulations.
(c) For a consistency review described in (b)(2)
of this section, the department, in addition to its
review under AS 46.40.096 of all other enforceable
policies applicable to the project, shall coordinate
with the Department of Environmental Conservation and
issue the Department of Environmental Conservation's
finding of whether the activity satisfies the
requirements of the statutes and regulations described
in (b)(2) of this section."
[End of Amendment 1]
Number 1769
MS. RUTHERFORD reported that there had been comments received
from several coastal districts about the third sentence of
Section 11; the concern was that Section 11 prevented any
district enforceable policies on the outer continental shelf.
She explained:
That was not the intent, nor do we feel that was the
effect of Section 11. However, in order to clarify
that the districts can have local enforceable policies
that are applicable to federal activities, federally
permitted activities, and activities in the outer
continental shelf, we prepared that amendment. And it
basically says the DEC standards are not the exclusive
standards that would apply to those types of
consistency reviews.
Number 1834
CHAIR FATE reminded members that public testimony was closed
except for answering questions. He also noted that a second
amendment had been suggested by the CBJ.
Number 1867
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE moved to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided
previously].
The committee took an at-ease from 2:33 p.m. to 2:34 p.m.
Number 1902
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA called attention to [Section 46], the
transition section, and asked what happens in the interim. She
acknowledged testimony that the programs will stay the same, but
noted that page 22, lines 15-16, says it's only "to the extent
the regulations are not inconsistent with this Act". She
expressed concern that it is circular, since it says it only
stays in effect to the extent it's not inconsistent, but that
the inconsistencies would be huge because of the "DEC breakout,
if nothing else." She asked, "Do we have to be consistent with
the Act to have a district enforceable policy to remain in
effect during transition?"
MR. GALVIN answered no. He offered his understanding that this
is standard drafting language from [Legislative Legal and
Research Services] to provide for the continuation of
regulations when there has been a statutory change in the
overarching program. He added, "It's to the extent consistent
also with the transitional parts of this statute, which leave
the district policies in place. And they will remain a part of
the program until either they are amended by DNR through the
amendment process or they sunset."
Number 1984
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked, when it says "not inconsistent
with this Act," whether it is referring back to the original Act
or program.
MS. RUTHERFORD deferred to Mr. Tostevin.
Number 2013
BRECK TOSTEVIN, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law,
indicated there are two occurrences of "not inconsistent with" -
one with the Act, and the other with the program, AS 46.40.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said the problem begins on line 12
[page 22, subsection (b)], where it talks about "sec. 45 of this
Act". She suggested it might be a technical matter and that the
committee can be sure that the language is drafted appropriately
to keep the program in effect until transitioned out. She said
that seems to be everyone's intent.
MS. RUTHERFORD added:
We'd heard Representative Kerttula's concerns
previously. We absolutely want to keep the program in
effect, as pertinent to the sections of the bill that
talk about the timing for the transition. That was
our intention. Mr. Tostevin went back, worked with
the regulatory attorneys to assure that, in fact, this
was as good as we could make this language, to give
you that comfort. But I can assure you, that's how
the department will be implementing it.
Number 2088
CHAIR FATE returned attention to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected in order to request an
explanation.
Number 2133
MR. TOSTEVIN noted that Section 11, page 8, beginning on line
11, reads, "AS 46.03, AS 46.04, AS 46.09, AS 46.14, and the
regulations adopted under those statutes constitute the
exclusive enforceable policies of the Alaska coastal management
program for those purposes." He informed members that the
foregoing are referred to as "the air, land, and water quality
standards." He explained that Amendment 1 [deletes the rest of
Section 11 and] inserts language that says, "For those purposes
only", which refers back to those statutes and regulations.
MR. TOSTEVIN explained that there are two provisions. One
relates to issuing permits and so forth. The second addresses
situations involving federal activities, activities on federal
lands, or activities on the outer continental shelf; consistency
is based on whether DEC finds that the activity satisfies the
requirements of those statutes and regulations, since DEC
doesn't issue a permit for those. Noting that the reference in
subsection (c) to the department refers to DNR, he said the idea
behind that subsection is to clarify that a project can have
other activities beyond those regulated by DEC.
MS. RUTHERFORD added that a district could develop local
enforceable policies specific to the outer continental shelf,
for example.
CHAIR FATE said it had seemed to be a big concern voiced
consistently throughout these hearings.
MS. RUTHERFORD replied, "It is, and we want to protect that."
Number 2280
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA withdrew her objection.
CHAIR FATE, hearing no further objection, announced that
Amendment 1 was adopted.
The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:40 p.m.
Number 2318
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE moved to adopt [Conceptual] Amendment 2, a
handwritten amendment that read [original punctuation provided]:
New (4) -
If the applicant fails to respond in writing to a
written request for additional information within 14
days of receipt of such request;
Number 2319
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected for discussion purposes. She
requested an explanation and asked what pages it applies to.
CHAIR FATE said it is Section 22, page 15, line 2.
MS. RUTHERFORD explained that if an applicant fails to respond
in writing to a written request for additional information
within 14 days [of receipt of such request], it allows the 90-
day timeline to be tolled under certain circumstances, as do
paragraphs (2) and (3).
Number 2423
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA withdrew her objection.
CHAIR FATE announced that the objection had been removed.
[Conceptual Amendment 2 was treated as adopted.]
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA inquired about the proposed amendment
from the City & Borough of Juneau mentioned previously. [There
was no further discussion of this amendment on the record.]
The committee took a short at-ease at 2:45 p.m.
Number 2454
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE moved to report CSHB 191 [Version 03-0069
bil2.doc, 4/22/2003, 1:30 pm], as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note(s).
Number 2483
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected. She thanked the team from the
administration for its hard work on this, acknowledging the huge
step forward. However, she said it is almost impossible to put
into words the difficulties she believes the bill will present
to the state. For example, the "breaking out of DEC" is a huge
step that will greatly impact not only districts, but also the
permitting process; it will take a long time to discuss.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that this program has been in
place almost 30 years, and that there are good and bad things
about it, including delays and inconsistencies in standards.
However, at its heart, it is how the state - in rural Alaska,
particularly - has dealt with local areas and the control over
their resource development. She pointed out that standards in
some districts allow greater resource development. For example,
on the Kenai Peninsula there are standards that actually go a
step further than the state in encouraging development in
certain areas. Similarly, Juneau has areas where people want to
see development, balanced against areas like wetlands that
people want to see protected.
Number 2559
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA highlighted some of the issues,
including moving the DEC standards completely out and not
understanding how it will balance when a district enforceable
standard comes up against any other law. She suggested this
should be of interest and some concern not only to people who
are concerned about preservation, but also to those concerned
about development, because what will be allowed isn't clear.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed hope that over the interim the
districts will come forward, after having time to review this
and understand the issues, and will come back to the legislature
next session. She suggested that eventually some of it might
conceivably work, but said some won't. She conveyed concern
about having duplicative and confusing processes, rather than
bringing things together, and said she cannot support the bill
in this format because there are too many issues and it is too
confusing.
Number 2632
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said even though it is difficult to
understand, it seeks to put management and development policies
into DNR; she suggested this will help promote organization in
coastal communities, ultimately allowing more local input and
management of zones. She proposed the need to further develop
statewide coastal management guidelines that include input from
affected zones and yet don't adversely affect management
objectives. She said she feels that the chair, the committee,
the administrative staff, and the industry have done a good job
of creating a partnership that includes the needs and concerns
of local communities as well as the need of the state to grow.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK remarked that curtailing development in
Alaska's coastal zone is not a reasonable option in these
difficult economic times; if the need to protect the coast isn't
recognized, however, there is a risk of damage that affects the
standard of living and livelihood of Alaska's coastal residents.
She highlighted the ongoing challenge of managing use of the
coast so that undesirable impacts are minimized and growth and
development are enabled. Regarding the unorganized borough, she
said she believes the state is obligated to manage the coastal
areas to ensure protection from harm in addition to development
for the future. She emphasized the need for a shared purpose
and cooperation among government, industry, and the community in
order to ensure sustainable development and management of
Alaska's coastal zones. She offered her belief that this
legislation can promote that cooperation, and said she feels
pretty comfortable moving the bill from committee.
Number 2792
CHAIR FATE observed that consistency review with regard to
coastal management has been a thorn. He suggested this is a
"new skeleton" to build on, one that is much better than the
system of the past. Commending the committee, he echoed
Representative Masek's support for the work on the bill and said
it is one of the most important bills the committee will see
during the session.
Number 2840
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, remarking on the almost overwhelming
number of versions and changes, surmised that there will be a
lot of controversy. He asked the committee to remember that the
bill is designed to affect the residents of Alaska, and that the
public process requires a lot of input [from those residents].
He expressed hope that over the interim what is learned can be
incorporated to improve the bill.
Number 2953
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG expressed amazement at the amount of
work that has gone into this, recognizing that the process has
been in place 30 years and that while some people have problems
with it, others have enjoyed the ability to influence what
happens in their communities. He said he'd have been more
comfortable with the bill if a stakeholders' group had come
forward with it.
TAPE 03-35, SIDE B
Number 2988
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG indicated he'd missed the process of
[having all groups at the table]. Although he doesn't live in a
coastal community, he said he wants this process to go forward
and work. He expressed concern that instead of streamlining and
making it go forward in a smoother manner, this will stop a lot
of things; people will need to learn the process all over again,
and many of the disputes will be decided in court, which is the
slowest way to get answers. He went on to say that although
he'd like to see economic development, he believes this will
hurt the process instead of helping it.
Number 2906
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE referred to the saying, "If it ain't
broke, don't fix it." She opined that this has been broken for
years, and suggested [the current version] is something to be
proud of.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF said his hat is off to the administration.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Masek, Gatto,
Heinze, Lynn, Morgan, Wolf, and Fate voted in favor of reporting
CSHB 191 [Version 03-0069 bil2.doc, 4/22/2003, 1:30 pm, as
amended] out of committee. Representatives Kerttula and
Guttenberg voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 191(RES) was
reported from the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote
of 7-2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|