Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 124
03/21/2005 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB197 | |
| HJR15 | |
| HB197 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 197 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 21, 2005
1:52 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Co-Chair
Representative Ralph Samuels, Co-Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 197
"An Act exempting certain natural gas exploration and production
facilities from oil discharge prevention and contingency plans
and proof of financial responsibility, and amending the powers
and duties of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
with respect to those plans; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15
Relating to open ocean aquaculture in the federal exclusive
economic zone.
- MOVED CSHJR 15 (RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5
Opposing imposition of a milk tax on Alaskans.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 197
SHORT TITLE: OIL SPILL EXEMPTIONS FOR GAS WELLS
SPONSOR(S): OIL & GAS
03/03/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/03/05 (H) O&G, RES
03/15/05 (H) O&G AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/15/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/15/05 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
03/16/05 (H) O&G RPT 5DP 1NR
03/16/05 (H) DP: SAMUELS, GARDNER, DAHLSTROM,
ROKEBERG, KOHRING;
03/16/05 (H) NR: KERTTULA
03/21/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 15
SHORT TITLE: OPEN OCEAN AQUACULTURE
SPONSOR(S): FISHERIES
03/01/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/01/05 (H) FSH, RES
03/09/05 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
03/09/05 (H) Moved CSHJR 15(FSH) Out of Committee
03/09/05 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/10/05 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 4DP
03/10/05 (H) DP: HARRIS, WILSON, LEDOUX, THOMAS
03/21/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 197 as sponsor.
LARRY DIETRICK, Director
Division of Spill Prevention and Response
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 197.
IAN FISK, Staff
to Representative Bill Thomas
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 15 on behalf of Representative
Thomas, sponsor.
PAULA TERREL
Alaska Marine Conservation Council
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 15.
JERRY MCCUNE
United Fishermen of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 15.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR RALPH SAMUELS called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:52:27 PM. Representatives
Olson, Ramras, Samuels, Seaton, LeDoux, Elkins, and Gatto were
present at the call to order. Representatives Kapsner and
Crawford arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 197-OIL SPILL EXEMPTIONS FOR GAS WELLS
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 197 "An Act exempting certain natural
gas exploration and production facilities from oil discharge
prevention and contingency plans and proof of financial
responsibility, and amending the powers and duties of the Alaska
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission with respect to those plans;
and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING, Alaska State Legislature, said HB
197 is designed to correct an unintended consequence of House
Bill 531 in 2004. While trying to place restrictions on the
coal bed methane industry, the legislature inadvertently
required gas drilling companies to create oil spill contingency
plans, he said. This bill will provide an exemption where there
is negligible risk for oil spills. There are no fiscal
consequences, and there is support from the industry, the Alaska
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC), and the Department
of Environmental Conservation (DEC), he concluded.
1:55:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned language in Section 2 where it
said the exemption does not apply to gas drilling where oil
could be encountered.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said the exemption doesn't apply to gas
drilling where oil could be encountered. There are areas in gas
formations that are capable of flowing oil, so only if it is
determined by the AOGCC that there is no potential for oil to
seep out, then there would be an exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said it can't be known before drilling.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked about line 13 on page 3 where "crude
oil does not include natural gas or refined petroleum products."
He wanted to make clear that pipelines with refined petroleum
products will be required to have oil spill contingency plans.
1:58:42 PM
LARRY DIETRICK, Director, Division of Spill Prevention and
Response, Department of Environmental Conservation, said AOGCC
is responsible for determining the likelihood of oil being
present. He said he is not aware of AOGCC ever making the wrong
determination. If there is oil present, the requirement will be
imposed. If a contingency plan was not in place and there was a
spill, the permittee will still need to respond appropriately as
directed by other statutes.
2:00:17 PM
MR. DIETRICK thinks the reference to crude oil tries to make it
clear that the bill applies to the gas-only situation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that was his concern. "Crude oil
does not include natural gas--I don't have a problem with that--
but then we have 'or refined petroleum products,' and if we're
exempting pipelines that are carrying refined oil products from
having an oil spill contingency plan, I would have a problem
with that, but I am not sure if that's the effect of the bill."
MR. DIETRICK said, "There are no other categories of the
regulated facilities that would be exempted by this, other than
the gas exploration activities, so the scenario of a refined
petroleum product pipeline, say, or oil storage tank that's
currently regulated would still continue to be regulated."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the language should include
refined petroleum products "if we're just trying to distinguish
between crude oil and natural gas."
2:02:07 PM
MR. DIETRICK said he thinks there is a technical reason for
clarifying the definition, and he'll ask the Department of Law.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that on page 3, line 13, the
definition of crude oil does not include natural gas, and he
asked if natural gas is always part of crude oil.
MR. DIETRICK said natural gas is separately defined in statute,
and the intent is to distinguish them. Natural gas has a stand-
alone definition. It is a component of crude, but for the
purposes of applying the exemption, the two are considered
separately.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that on page 3, line 25, there is
the language that oil does not include natural gas, and then
there is a different definition on page 4, line 7.
2:05:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if it was just non-conventional gas
that is being considered.
MR. DIETRICK answered that the bill concerns non-conventional
gas because that is what was inadvertently changed last year.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if HB 197 conforms to the current
procedures for conventional gas.
MR. DIETRICK said that is correct, and the definitions are
technical changes to make it consistent.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked about the deletion on page 2, line 8.
MR. DIETRICK replied, "The change made by [house bill 531],
narrowed that definition of 'non-conventional' to the gas wells,
and that was the problem area, so that's why they deleted it,
and it's replaced with the language, which is all new in Section
1. So they deleted the reference to non-conventional, which was
changed by 531 to have a different--it narrowed it from its
originally broad thing, which would have continued to allow gas
wells to be exempt. So when it narrowed it down, it implied
then that contingency plans would be required for the non-
conventional or the coal bed wells, and that's what they're
trying to fix." Section 1 substitutes for the deleted language
in Section 2, he added. If AOGCC makes the determination that
oil is not present, then no contingency plan would be required.
2:08:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said it is not his intention to include
refined petroleum products, and he would support clarifying that
language. He also noted a technical correction that he would
like fixed on page 4, line 1, where he would like to insert the
word "to" after the word "oil".
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS asked who is responsible if there is an
oil spill when no contingency plan was required.
MR. DIETRICK said the operator is, and that is part of the
application process. If an oil contingency response plan was
not required, the operators are still required to immediately
respond to a spill.
2:10:53 PM
MR. DIETRICK said that the idea of requiring a plan is for
specific situations where the risk is high enough to have a high
level of preparedness in place.
2:11:54 PM
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS set the bill aside until teleconferencing
problems could be fixed.
HJR 15-OPEN OCEAN AQUACULTURE
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15, Relating to open ocean
aquaculture in the federal exclusive economic zone.
IAN FISK, Staff to Representative Bill Thomas, Alaska State
Legislature, said there is draft federal legislation that would
allow open ocean aquaculture. The fishing industry has numerous
concerns, he said, including disease transmission, antibiotics,
damage to the environment by anoxic conditions created by
overfeeding, health of farmed fish to consumers, escapes into
the natural environment of non-native species, and use of
genetically modified organisms. He added that there are socio-
economic concerns about impacts to existing fisheries and the
communities and businesses that depend on them. Mr. Fisk said
the federal exclusive economic zone as all federal waters from 3
miles to the 200-mile limit. He said Alaska's fisheries are
soundly managed now for sustainability and maximum resource
value. Alaskans are the primary participants in the state's
fisheries, and much of the economic benefits stay in the state
and spread through communities, local businesses, and state
government.
MR. FISK said the legislature banned fin fish farming in state
waters in 1990, and HJR 15 refers to federal waters. Since 1990
the international fish farming industry has caused harm to the
state's fisheries, but "we are starting to see the benefits of
sticking to our guns," because Alaska has carved out a niche in
the world market, which is producing better fish prices based on
Alaska's natural and healthy fish products. "We've made a name
for ourselves," he said.
2:15:49 PM
MR. FISK said the committee substitute (CS) adds a resolve that
the legislature opposes open ocean aquaculture for fin fish and
predator shellfish in the waters off Alaska, and it urges
Congress to prohibit the use of genetically modified fish
anywhere in the United States exclusive economic zone. The CS
also states support for the regional fisheries management
councils, and requests that the councils be granted authority
over any proposals regarding open ocean aquaculture in federal
waters.
2:16:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt CS HJR 15(FSH) version 24-
LS0631\Y, Utermohle, 3/21/05, as a work draft.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked why, on page 3, line 9, the
resolution requests a legislative environmental impact statement
(EIS), if it is already required by law.
MR. FISK said the Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries
Service has said that an EIS will not be required.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out the sentence in the resolution
that prohibits genetically modified fish, "what would happen if
we wound up with devastating diseases to the entire stock and
the virtual elimination of any kind of fishery, but it was
possible, with the introduction of a gene, to build some
resistance into the fish. This prohibits us from saving our own
fishery," he said.
MR. FISK said Alaska's fish stocks are very biologically diverse
and, in the case of salmon, they are very abundant and
ubiquitous, so there is a very small risk for such an event.
The bigger risk, he said, is if we allow genetically modified
organisms into net pens that are prone to failure. He added
that the introduction of unnatural fish is the biggest threat to
natural stock.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked what was prone to failure.
MR. FISH clarified that net pens fail. "We've seen the escape
of lots of farmed fish from farms in British Columbia. If we
allowed genetically-modified organisms, in my opinion, we're
just playing with fire," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said his concern is that "the way
biological systems go, you introduce a predator, and they're
very efficient at what they do, and especially when you have
this incredible food supply. If, indeed, we had something that
was so attractive to a predator, that we were simply losing so
many fish that there wasn't any sense to fish any more, but we
could make the fish bigger so they couldn't eat it, or make the
fish resistant to a bacteria or a virus ... so they wouldn't die
from it, wouldn't that be detrimental if we said we can't save
the fish by saving them? That's the concern that I see in that
one statement," he said.
MR. FISK said Representative Gatto's concern is "so nightmarish"
he doesn't know how to respond to it. "If we get to a point
where our natural stocks are to that level of depletion, I would
hate to think that we would have to engineer the entire response
to it," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said pike are effective predators; "they're
good at what they do and they enjoy doing it. If, indeed, we
had a pike-like situation where we're losing our stocks like
crazy, and somebody says there isn't any way to save these guys"
unless we genetically modify them, then, "nightmarish or not,
we're making legislation that could make a nightmare," he said.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked how much a wild Alaska fish costs compared
to a farmed fish.
MR. FISK said he guesses wild Alaska salmon retails for 40 to 50
percent more than farmed fish. That is just salmon, he said,
and any other number of species could be farmed. Alaska's fish
get a premium price because of the name association and the
inherent quality that Alaska's system produces. "Our whole
management system is considered world class," he said, and
farmed Alaska fish will confuse the market place.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked the difference between a hatchery and a
fish farm, and if a hatchery were to keep fish until they were
bigger, would they be considered farmed fish.
MR. FISK said hatcheries only assist fish through a very early
stage of their lives, and they spend their entire adult lives as
any other fish would.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked if farmed fish are kept in pens.
MR. FISK said farmed fish have to be kept in pens and fed until
they are marketable.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS said the Douglas Island Pink and Chum (DIPAC)
fish hatchery in Juneau sees a two to three percent return of
their fish, and he asked if farmed fish have a higher return.
MR. FISK said, "Definitely. The fish don't have to compete and
behave like a real fish, they just sit there ... like salmon
cows, fattening up, living close to each other, festering and
getting diseased, instead of being like a real fish out in the
ocean competing and becoming robust like our own wild fish."
2:27:21 PM
PAULA TERREL, Alaska Marine Conservation Council (AMCC), said
she fishes commercially, but she is representing the AMCC, which
works with coastal communities - trying to keep Alaskans
fishing. Most board members are commercial fishermen, she
added. The AMCC supports CSHJR 15(FSH) and would like one
change. On page 2, line 28, she said, it would be stronger to
remove "in the waters off Alaska," because farmed fish from
other areas can have a negative impact on Alaska fisheries.
2:29:49 PM
MS. TERREL said a company has requested permission from the Food
and Drug Administration to supply fish farms with genetically
modified fish. A genetically modified fish would be an invasive
species, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said if global warming is real and raises
water temperatures, and salmon want cold water, "and they start
to get away from us and start moving further and further north
... and we start losing the volumes of fish we have now" and a
company says it can make the salmon tolerant to warmer water by
genetic modification, "and you could lose your whole industry,
or you could do this, would you do it?" he asked.
MS. TERREL said genetic modification modifies the fish's
hormones, "I don't know that you are modifying their resistance
to disease or other things," she said. The water is getting
warmer, and salmon are still here, she added. Alaska has world-
class fishery management and she doesn't think Representative
Gatto's scenario would happen.
2:32:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said salmon are sensitive to water
temperatures, but the way they navigate to their spawning stream
is with the magnetic pole and through their sense of smell.
2:33:14 PM
JERRY MCCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska, said "[someone is]
putting in for a permit for genetic modified that's shot up with
hormones so it makes a king salmon huge but its head stays
[really] teeny so the brain doesn't catch up with the body." He
said the reason the hatcheries started was to complement
Alaska's wild stocks. It has nothing to do with "genetic
modified," which has been banned in some states and in the
European Union. It has nothing to do with replacing wild
stocks, he said. Hatcheries raise their fish to a certain size,
and if they held them too long, the timing would be wrong, he
added. Holding them for too long introduces disease and other
problems. "They have to go out at a certain time so they'll
come back at a certain time," he said.
2:35:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned Ms. Terrel's statement that
modifying genes only results in a hormonal change.
MR. MCCUNE said, yes, "to make a fish grow [really] fast," so
growing a king salmon takes one year instead of the natural five
years.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said it is curious that genetic
modification only affects hormones. "You can genetically modify
corn and everything else, and make it grow bigger, and it's not
hormones, it's something else," he said.
MR. MCCUNE said, "You change the genetics. Fish have certain
genetics, and they go back to certain streams because ... they
have these two bones in there that [have] a polar pull that goes
back to certain water. If you have genetic modified fish, all
you do is grow a fish fast, you're not going to replace genetic
modified fish to help our wild stocks, because you would be
changing the whole gene pool of the wild stocks. Each stock has
a unique gene pool," he said.
2:37:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, as follows:
Page 3, line 9, after "by"
Delete "law"
Insert "the National Environmental Policy Act"
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he wants to make sure that open ocean
aquaculture is in conformance with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969.
There being no objection, Amendment 1 carried.
2:39:59 PM
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS asked Mr. Fisk about removing the words "off
Alaska" from the resolution.
MR. FISK said he would not mind banning aquaculture from all
federal waters. "It is up to the committee," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he thinks it's a "dandy amendment."
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS asked if Amendment 2 reads as follows:
Page 2, line 28, after "shellfish"
Delete "in the waters off Alaska"
Amendment 2 was considered as moved, and there being no
objection, Amendment 2 carried.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS moved to report CSHJR 15(FSH) version 24-
LS0631\Y as amended with individual recommendations. Hearing no
objection, CSHJR 15(RES) was reported out of the House Resources
Standing Committee.
HB 197-OIL SPILL EXEMPTIONS FOR GAS WELLS
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS announced that the next order of business would
be revisiting HOUSE BILL NO. 197, "An Act exempting certain
natural gas exploration and production facilities from oil
discharge prevention and contingency plans and proof of
financial responsibility, and amending the powers and duties of
the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission with respect to
those plans; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered Amendment 1 as follows:
Page 4, line 1, after "oil"
Insert "to"
2:42:52 PM
There being no objection, Amendment 1 carried.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:43 p.m. to 2:44 p.m.
2:44:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he wants the committee to consider
offering an amendment to delete "or refined petroleum products"
from page 3, lines 13-14 and from page 4, lines 7-8. He will
wait until the sponsor can explain why it is in the bill.
2:45:23 PM
[HB 197 was held over]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
2:45:52 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|