Legislature(1995 - 1996)

04/17/1996 08:04 AM RES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         April 17, 1996                                        
                           8:04 a.m.                                           
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman                                         
 Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman                        
 Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman                                      
 Representative Alan Austerman                                                 
 Representative John Davies                                                    
 Representative Pete Kott                                                      
 Representative Don Long                                                       
 Representative Irene Nicholia                                                 
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 Representative Ramona Barnes                                                  
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 Confirmation hearing Michele D. Brown, Commissioner, Department of            
 Environmental Conservation.                                                   
      - CONFIRMATION ADVANCED                                                  
 SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 37                                                    
 Urging the United States Congress to give an affirmative expression           
 of approval to a policy authorizing the state to regulate,                    
 restrict, or prohibit the export of unprocessed logs harvested from           
 its land and from the land of its political subdivisions and the              
 University of Alaska.                                                         
      - PASSED SJR 37 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                         
 * HOUSE BILL 331                                                              
 "An Act relating to mining."                                                  
      - PASSED CSHB 331(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                  
 HOUSE BILL 342                                                                
 "An Act relating to water quality."                                           
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
 HOUSE BILL 406                                                                
 "An Act relating to waste and use of salmon and parts of salmon;              
 relating to permits for and operation of a salmon hatchery; and               
 providing for an effective date."                                             
      - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                
 * HOUSE BILL 516                                                              
 "An Act relating to air quality control."                                     
      - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                
 CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 199(FIN)                                               
 "An Act relating to environmental audits and health and safety                
 audits to determine compliance with certain laws, permits, and                
      - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                
 (* First public hearing)                                                      
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  SJR 37                                                               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 02/12/96      2381    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/12/96      2382    (S)   RESOURCES                                         
 03/08/96              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/08/96              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/11/96              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/12/96      2705    (S)   RES RPT  6DP                                      
 03/12/96      2705    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.RES)                          
 03/13/96              (S)   RLS AT 11:00 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 03/13/96              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 03/25/96      2865    (S)   RULES RPT  2CAL 1NR 1OTHER   3/25/96              
 03/25/96      2883    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 03/25/96      2883    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT            
 03/25/96      2883    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  SJR 37                       
 03/25/96      2883    (S)   PASSED Y20 N-                                     
 03/25/96      2886    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 03/26/96      3360    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/26/96      3360    (H)   RESOURCES                                         
 03/26/96      3381    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S): NAVARRE                         
 04/17/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 BILL:  HB 331                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: POSTING OF BOND BEFORE LAND ENTRY                                
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT,Kelly                                
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 5/03/95       1814    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 05/03/95      1814    (H)   RESOURCES, FINANCE                                
 04/17/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 BILL:  HB 342                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: WATER QUALITY STANDARDS                                          
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROKEBERG                                        
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 05/09/95      2042    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 05/09/95      2042    (H)   O&G, RESOURCES                                    
 10/17/95              (H)   O&G AT  1:00 PM ANCHORAGE LIO                     
 10/17/95              (H)   MINUTE(O&G)                                       
 02/13/96              (H)   O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 02/13/96              (H)   MINUTE(O&G)                                       
 02/20/96              (H)   O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 02/20/96              (H)   MINUTE(O&G)                                       
 03/21/96              (H)   O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 03/21/96              (H)   MINUTE(O&G)                                       
 03/22/96      3267    (H)   O&G RPT  CS(O&G) 1DP 3NR                          
 03/22/96      3268    (H)   DP: ROKEBERG                                      
 03/22/96      3268    (H)   NR: G.DAVIS, B.DAVIS, WILLIAMS                    
 03/22/96      3268    (H)   2 FISCAL NOTES (DEC, F&G)                         
 03/22/96      3268    (H)   REFERRED TO RESOURCES                             
 03/27/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 03/27/96              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/29/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 04/01/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 04/01/96              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 MICHELE BROWN, Commissioner-Designee                                          
 Department of Environmental Conservation                                      
 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105                                              
 Juneau, AK  99801-1795                                                        
 Telephone:  (907) 465-5066                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT: Agency presentation                                       
 SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON                                                        
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 427                                                    
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2828                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Prime sponsor of SJR 37                                  
 SARA FISHER, Legislative Assistant                                            
 Representative Gene Therriault                                                
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 421                                                    
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 465-6597                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on behalf of the sponsor of HB 331             
 JULES TILESTON, Director                                                      
 Division of Mining & Water Management                                         
 Department of Natural Resources                                               
 3601 C Street, Suite 800                                                      
 Anchorage, Alaska  99503                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 269-8625                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 331                                      
 STEVEN C. BORELL, P.E., Executive Director                                    
 Alaska Miners Association, Inc.                                               
 501 W. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 203                                       
 Anchorage, Alaska  99503                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 276-0347                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 331                           
 MIC MANNS, Representative                                                     
 Paradise Valley Mines                                                         
 Bettles, Alaska  99726                                                        
 Telephone:  (907) 479-5704                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 331                           
 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG                                                
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 110                                                    
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4968                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Offered amendments to CSHB 342(RES)                      
 JANICE ADAIR, Director                                                        
 Division of Environmental Health                                              
 Department of Environmental Conservation                                      
 555 Cordova Street                                                            
 Anchorage, AK  99501                                                          
 Telephone:  (907)  269-7644                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Offered amendments to CSHB 342(RES)                      
 MARILYN CROCKETT                                                              
 Alaska Oil & Gas Association                                                  
 121 West Fireweed, Suite 207                                                  
 Anchorage, AK  99503                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 269-8625                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSHB 342(RES)                               
 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison                                              
 Office of the Commissioner                                                    
 Department of Fish & Game                                                     
 P.O. Box 25526                                                                
 Juneau, AK  99811-5526                                                        
 Telephone:  (907) 465-6143                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSHB 342(RES)                               
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 96-57, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Resources Committee meeting            
 to order at 8:04 a.m.  Members present at the call to order were              
 Representatives Green, Williams, Ogan, Austerman and Kott.                    
 Representatives Davies, Long and Nicholia arrived late and                    
 Representative Barnes was absent.                                             
 CONFIRMATION HEARING - MICHELE D. BROWN                                     
 Number 065                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Michele D. Brown, Commissioner-Designee,              
 Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), to come forward and           
 Number 070                                                                    
 MICHELE BROWN, Commissioner-Designee, Department of Environmental             
 Conservation, said she would provide the committee with an overview           
 of where the department has been and where they are going.  The               
 department has a very important role to play, but it was clear to             
 her and former commissioner, Gene Burden, the department needed to            
 pursue their goal in using more updated methods and approaches.               
 She said they had left the era of command and control for                     
 environmental management and needed to move toward what she                   
 referred to as a "common stewardship of resources" approach.                  
 However, the department found they were constrained because of two            
 things:  1) They needed to change their mind set about the business           
 of environmental management; and 2) they needed to have an                    
 organization that was conducive to the kind of consistency and                
 accountability that that approach required.  They also needed a               
 budget that was clearly capturing the costs of running each program           
 so the cost could be tied directly to the public health benefit               
 achieved to ensure they were buying a product for the budget.                 
 Thus, the department was reorganized last year.                               
 Number 229                                                                    
 COMMISSIONER BROWN stated the department went from 22 autonomous              
 management units to 6 units which was done to achieve clear                   
 accountability through direct management lines.  She noted this has           
 helped to eliminate a lot of the regional inconsistencies that had            
 previously bothered some committee members.  The department unified           
 program development and program implementation so the people who              
 are applying the laws are also responsible for developing them.               
 This had not been done before and it left the department in a                 
 position of not being sure their regulations really made sense when           
 they were applied because they were developed by people who were              
 not applying them.                                                            
 Number 342                                                                    
 COMMISSIONER BROWN noted that by reorganizing, the department was             
 able to save money.  The work force was reduced by 5 percent and              
 saved $1.3 million.  This savings was accomplished by straightening           
 lines of management, by consolidating administrative functions and            
 eliminating redundancies.  When the department was organized in the           
 22 autonomous management units, program funds were so split up                
 among each of these units it was nearly impossible to tell what it            
 really cost to run a program.  By straightening that out, the                 
 department got two extra bonuses.  The first was that by accurately           
 capturing the administrative cost to run a program, they could                
 negotiate a more realistic rate on the federal monies given to the            
 department.  Now they can safely say that because the indirect rate           
 on federal grants is directly linked to program costs, they no                
 longer have general funds subsidizing federally mandated programs.            
 The second bonus was to reduce the spending from the Oil and                  
 Hazardous Substance Release Response Fund.  The savings totaled               
 several hundred thousand dollars.  The reason for that is when the            
 costs were not accurately pinpointed to each program before, they             
 found the fund was in some cases paying more than its fair share.             
 So they were glad to take actions that would protect the fund for             
 its intended response use.  That was the physical part of the                 
 reorganization.  She reiterated that it straightened management               
 lines, saved money and reduced their dependence on general funds.             
 Even more importantly, it positioned them to implement the change             
 in mindset and direction she mentioned earlier, which is the second           
 phase of the reorganization that is currently ongoing.                        
 COMMISSIONER BROWN stated the department needs to move to a primary           
 mission of compliance in technical assistance.  Compliance with               
 clean air and clean water requirements will always be necessary,              
 but the department starts with the assumption that the industries             
 operating in Alaska have both the corporate conscience and the                
 corporate technical ability to be able to work with them on                   
 constructive solutions for environmental management.  She noted               
 that several operating principles have been set up to better define           
 the department's role, three of which she would share with the                
 Number 422                                                                    
 COMMISSIONER BROWN said first is the Department of Environmental              
 Conservation is part of the state's resource management team.                 
 Sound environmental management means assisting in the design and              
 siting of operations, which helps avoid environmental problems and            
 opposition to projects down the line.  She wants the department to            
 become constructive at the front end of a project; not a roadblock            
 at the eleventh hour.  The second principle is the department views           
 themselves as part of the state's overall economic development                
 team.  The department is working hard to focus on customer service            
 that strengthens the overall economy, creates and maintains jobs              
 and maintains the quality of air, water and natural resources that            
 attract growth.  Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that economic           
 development is in fact strongest where there is the most sound                
 environmental management.  By sound environmental management, she             
 didn't necessarily mean the most stringent or the strictest                   
 standards, but rather that resources are managed on an interactive,           
 rational and involved approached.  Where there is excessive                   
 pollution, the economy does decline and the reason for that is                
 because the environment is an infrastructure; it's like roads or              
 electrical services.  New economic development can't occur if                 
 single operators are using up the entire capacity of the                      
 environment to absorb waste or to provide raw materials.  For                 
 example, a new seafood processing facility could not come on line             
 if existing facilities are discharging so many wastes that there's            
 no ready source for clean water intake.                                       
 Number 523                                                                    
 COMMISSIONER BROWN said a third operating principle at the DEC is             
 that they are the cornerstone of the state's public health system.            
 People tend to think of the department as more large industrial               
 permitting, but in fact, the lion's share of their work is safe               
 food, pure drinking water, proper waste disposal and better                   
 sanitation.  Most of these fundamental services are done by local             
 government in the rest of the country but in Alaska, the state                
 retains the responsibility for assuring the basics that are taken             
 for granted in modern life.                                                   
 COMMISSIONER BROWN further stated that to implement these                     
 principles, each of the programs has turned to a management by                
 objectives approach to guide their actions.  These objectives are             
 focused on environmental results, not on process and not on red               
 tape.  The department really wants to see what result their                   
 programs are buying, not just how many steps it takes to get to               
 that resolve.  The department is hoping to launch a program where             
 they ask industry to join with them in making common objectives so            
 everyone can march to the same direction.  She has also asked                 
 staff, as they implement these objectives, to get out into the                
 field and establish working partnerships.  Sitting in an office and           
 reviewing plans or asking for information will not get them there.            
 The department needs to form coalitions with all the interested               
 parties and get workable regulations to plan to avoid environmental           
 problems up front which can be very costly to correct later and to            
 be creative in problem solving to achieve compliance rather than              
 just demand it.  She hoped that committee members were familiar               
 with the department's efforts to accomplish this.  Some examples              
 are the Clear Air Act regulations, the EPA general placer mining              
 permit and the water quality standards.  All were highly                      
 contentious issues that the department is working through                     
 cooperatively rather than argumentatively as in the past.  Other              
 examples include the cleanup of Sitka's Silver Bay and the                    
 military's King Salmon and Pribilof sites which have long been                
 worrisome and serious areas of contamination that are finally being           
 addressed after years of neglect and years of finger pointing                 
 instead of looking toward cleanup and solution.                               
 Number 663                                                                    
 COMMISSIONER BROWN said another example is the department's seafood           
 program.  Fifty percent of the seafood produced in the United                 
 States is processed in Alaska and the department inspects the bulk            
 of it.  The department has to inspect it in order for the federal             
 government to allow it to move out of state into interstate                   
 commerce.  This is a major portion of the state's economy and                 
 seeing it be a safe and successful venture is their mission, but              
 they found they could also do that by saving money.  For instance,            
 the department analyzed the data for Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning            
 (PSP) poisoning and found they could target the requirements more             
 accurately to reflect the periods of risk.  As a result, the                  
 department adjusted the testing requirements in Kachemak Bay in               
 Southeast and are getting products to market faster without any               
 compromise to public health.                                                  
 COMMISSIONER BROWN concluded that is where the department is                  
 heading; the direction and the operating principles.  She noted               
 they are not 100 percent there yet.  They are working on it, but              
 transitions take time and take some getting used to by everyone;              
 the staff as well as the clients they serve.  She thought, however,           
 they had taken a major step in crossing over to a cooperative                 
 environmental management approach that brings people to the table             
 in a framework of decision making.  It's not always easy nor does             
 it necessarily eliminate conflict, but what it does is make                   
 everyone struggle with the responsibility of responsible decision             
 making rather than just blasting each other with rhetoric.  She               
 hoped she could count on the committee's support for these goals as           
 they proceed in the process.  She invited questions from committee            
 Number 779                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that Representatives Don Long and John                
 Davies had joined the meeting.                                                
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said that a bill had passed in the Eighteenth               
 Legislature that adjusted the way the 470 Fund was disbursed.  He             
 noted there are a lot of non-oil related or at least non-producer             
 related things that are covered out of the 470 Fund and asked if              
 any attempt was being made to find another funding source to help             
 replenish that since the bulk of it is not used from the industry             
 that supports it.                                                             
 COMMISSIONER BROWN responded that on refined product, the                     
 department is trying hard to look at some federal grant monies to             
 address the bulk fuel problem so they can reduce the dependence on            
 the 470 account for that.  Cost recovery is another avenue.  She              
 thought the biggest savings comes from carefully delineating what             
 the programs cost that they're no longer drawing on the fund to               
 absorb the indirect portions.                                                 
 Number 851                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN commented the reports presented in the Eighteenth           
 Legislature indicated a lot of funds were expended with a notation            
 to the effect that recoup had been dropped or was ongoing, but                
 seldom was there any actual recovery.  He asked if that had been              
 improved in Commissioner Brown's estimation?                                  
 COMMISSIONER BROWN said they have improved the recovery rate, but             
 added that it's not where it should be yet.  It is on the way up,             
 but it's not completely there.                                                
 Number 889                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted there had been some resolutions passed                
 dealing with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System                  
 (NPDES) and asked if there was any possibility of the   department            
 establishing primacy in NPDES permitting that would not be                    
 international or national waters, but within the state?                       
 COMMISSIONER BROWN responded that marketing Alaska as well as the             
 legislative resolutions was an area that people wanted the                    
 department to look at.  She said the department now has to cost out           
 what it would take to assume that large and expensive program.  It            
 would need to be a fee-based program which originally a lot of                
 industry opposed but now is thinking it would be in their interest            
 to do that because they would get the permits a lot faster.  She              
 reiterated the department is looking into what it would cost and              
 added they would provide the legislature with an analysis.                    
 Number 956                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN remarked that Commissioner Brown's predecessor's            
 had traveled extensively to areas where they thought there could be           
 pollution that ultimately might have an affect on the quality of              
 either air or water.   He asked if Commissioner Brown planned to              
 continue this type of activity?  He added, "I'm thinking primarily            
 since we seem to get the prevailing things from Russia that there             
 might be some ongoing dialogue or cooperative effort to help them             
 to prevent messing us up?"                                                    
 COMMISSIONER BROWN responded the department does have cooperative             
 efforts underway; however, it was certainly broader than just the             
 Department of Environmental Conservation.  She added they are part            
 of the Arctic Council which is the governments of the Arctic                  
 countries.  An area that's been one of the most important for the             
 department to work on is the sustainable development aspect of the            
 Arctic Council resolutions.  The reason it is important is because            
 the oil and gas development here is undertaken in the sustainable             
 development way, meaning a minimal footprint is left and not all              
 the resources will be used for all time, but not all countries are            
 doing that.  She said in order to level the playing field, we're              
 using the Arctic Council as a forum to have all the Arctic                    
 countries agree to the principles of how oil and gas development              
 will occur.  She stated there are ongoing radiation tracking                  
 proposals and noted a change made from the last Administration is             
 that instead of having the monitors in Russia where the activity              
 couldn't be controlled, they are now set up in Alaska so any                  
 problem can be detected early on.                                             
 Number 1065                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to recent articles indicating that                 
 Chernobyl may be a bomb waiting to happen and asked if that was               
 true and if it was something we should be worried about?                      
 COMMISSIONER BROWN responded it was hard to gauge.  She added that            
 based on her time in Russia, it was hard for the U.S. Government to           
 get a handle on how serious the nuclear power facilities were.                
 There's a strong sense that they are in bad shape and there was a             
 lot of effort being put in to alternative energy programs to                  
 encourage Russia to close them down.  She noted the monitoring is             
 set up in Alaska so we can have an early warning, but it's hard to            
 gauge how serious a threat it really is.                                      
 Number 1121                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to a letter from Marianne See, Director            
 of the Statewide Public Service Division to the consulting engineer           
 on the Spurr Highway which suggests that the legislature had cut              
 funding for septic inspections.  He didn't think that was quite               
 accurate.  The last paragraph of the letter suggests that the                 
 respective legislators be contacted.  He wondered if that was a               
 normal procedure in the department and what action took place.                
 COMMISSIONER BROWN said the department normally doesn't do a lot of           
 politicking which may be a problem because people don't know what             
 the department is up to.  She referred to the budget cuts and said            
 the domestic wastewater program has four components.  One is                  
 subdivision plan review where the department reviews subdivision              
 plans to ensure the lots are designed in such a way that they can             
 handle waste systems.  Alaska doesn't have many public systems, so            
 the department needs to ensure the lots are configured so each lot            
 can handle a system, preferably a conventional system.  Also, the             
 department does on-lot certifications which is when an individual             
 wants to sell a property, a health authority needs to certify that            
 the waste disposal system is working.  The department also does               
 plan approvals for unconventional systems or for larger than one              
 home systems and they respond to sewage on the ground.                        
 COMMISSIONER BROWN said once the department was reorganized and               
 domestic wastewater was under one program as opposed to bits and              
 pieces in all the management units, they could see what it really             
 cost.  She noted they have fee authority for the on-lot                       
 certification and fee authority for the on-lot plan approval but              
 there is no fee authority for sewage on the ground because that's             
 obviously not a fee based program.  The department didn't have fee            
 authority for the subdivision plan review which was paid for in               
 part by $185,000 in general funds which were cut out of the budget            
 this year.  She remarked the department has legislation for                   
 authority to charge fees so they can continue to do that function.            
 Without the fee authority and with this budget cut, the department            
 will no longer be able to do subdivision plan review.  The letter             
 Co-Chairman Green had referred to was to serve two purposes, the              
 first of which is to notify people who have been relying on the               
 department for the service, that the service will be discontinued             
 as of July 1.  She agreed that different words probably should have           
 been chosen for that last paragraph and in the call to action, it             
 probably stepped over the line of good judgment.  She does,                   
 however, think it was the responsible thing to do to tell people              
 that this service they have depended upon will no longer be                   
 provided in the next fiscal year.  She pointed out the                        
 Administration and the legislature do not see eye-to-eye on the               
 level of cuts, which is no secret to anyone.  The department has              
 repeatedly voiced their opposition to this cut; they think it is              
 unnecessary and potentially very harmful to public health and also            
 to the economic interests of property owners.  She thought the last           
 paragraph of the letter was probably more of an emotional response            
 that this is an important program that will be gone.  She mentioned           
 she would discuss with staff the difference between laying out what           
 is going to happen and a call to action.                                      
 Number 1375                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS said he has constituents who have                   
 complained about the attitudes displayed by department staff.  He             
 referred to the Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC) wastewater discharge,            
 chlorine free project into the main channel, taking it out of Ward            
 Cove and asked Commissioner Brown what her thoughts were on how               
 that would help the environment and her level of support for the              
 COMMISSIONER BROWN replied the department has been working                    
 extensively with Ketchikan Pulp Company and with the community of             
 Ketchikan.  She noted there were strong opinions on both sides of             
 the issue.  The department has been developing a comprehensive                
 approach to working with the KPC to solve both the air and the                
 water issues so the public develops a degree a confidence that                
 their health is not endangered nor is the environment.  On the air            
 side, the department is working through a new permit that will                
 significantly reduce the pollutants in the air emissions.  On the             
 water side, the department is working with the Environmental                  
 Protection Agency (EPA) and the KPC to design the new permit which            
 will move the outfall away from Ward Cove to Tongass Narrows.                 
 Also, the department is helping the KPC to design it in a way that            
 there will be a minimum mixing zone and will clearly meet water               
 quality standards when the discharge goes on-line.  She noted it is           
 a very complicated facility and the KPC has been working hard to              
 provide the department with the information needed to ensure they             
 are designing a new outfall and a new mixing zone that will not               
 present any problems.                                                         
 Number 1476                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if Commissioner Brown thought that would           
 make everyone feel comfortable?                                               
 COMMISSIONER BROWN replied, "Not everyone."                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Commissioner Brown to explain why people           
 wouldn't feel comfortable.                                                    
 COMMISSIONER BROWN thought there was a long history of distrust               
 that will take a number of years to overcome.  Also, she thought              
 the more information that got out into the public so people can               
 judge the studies and the analyses, would help people to have more            
 Number 1500                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Commissioner Brown what her feelings               
 were regarding what the KPC is doing?                                         
 COMMISSIONER BROWN responded she thought the company had made major           
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if the KPC is taking care of the                   
 COMMISSIONER BROWN thought KPC was trying very hard and added that            
 by the time the permit cycles are completed on both the air and               
 water issues....                                                              
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS inquired if Commissioner Brown would "go and             
 wave the flag" that Ketchikan Pulp Company is taking care of the              
 COMMISSIONER BROWN replied when the permits are in place because              
 the department isn't going to issue the permits until they are                
 completely comfortable that KPC is indeed providing....                       
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS interjected that usually there are problems              
 with people who are misinformed about what is happening and they              
 are not going to change their attitude.                                       
 COMMISSIONER BROWN said the department wants to bring the people              
 into the process a little more, which she felt would go a long way            
 toward helping the public develop that confidence.                            
 Number 1588                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AL AUSTERMAN pointed out that he is from Kodiak                
 where the seafood industry is very important.  He said as a child,            
 one of the problems Kodiak faced was low tide on hot summer days              
 and the EPA and the DEC started requiring discharges into the ocean           
 and set up a reduction plant.  The situation on a hot summer day in           
 Kodiak is not nearly as bad now and is getting better every year.             
 Part of the problem, as he sees it, is the level of interpretation            
 of what should be discharged and what shouldn't be discharged.  He            
 said, "If a vessel comes in and makes a delivery and they have                
 their saltwater system working where their fish have been stored,             
 that saltwater then gets pumped out of their hull along with the              
 fish and then it goes into the processing plant and then it comes             
 back out as a discharge of water.  The current system is set up               
 where body parts, crab shells, etc., are filtered out and taken to            
 the plant.  But there is an amount of foam, there is an amount of             
 fish scales that still are discharged into the water."  He inquired           
 at what level does Commissioner Brown foresee the department                  
 looking at discharge from seafood processing plants?  He noted that           
 some of the inspectors feel that foam and scales shouldn't go back            
 into the ocean.                                                               
 COMMISSIONER BROWN said she couldn't answer that at the moment                
 because she wasn't familiar enough with it.  She added the EPA                
 issues the NPDES permits and the department certifies them but she            
 couldn't speak to the discharging by vessels.  She would, however,            
 look into it and report back to Representative Austerman.                     
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he would appreciate that.  He knew              
 that inspectors have looked at the foam coming out of a seafood               
 processing plant and said that it's not acceptable, but any time              
 saltwater is run through a pump, foam is created and it's basically           
 saltwater that's being put back in.                                           
 Number 1722                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said his second question related to a                
 specific problem in Kodiak.  After the tidal wave in 1964, there              
 were a lot of areas in Kodiak that sunk five feet in addition to              
 areas that were destroyed.  Basically, everything was just covered            
 up.  One of the intersections has been scheduled by the Department            
 of Transportation & Public Facilities to be realigned and corrected           
 for a number of years.  The reason it hasn't been done is because             
 testing shows refined oil in the ground, but no one is able to                
 define where it is coming from.  The assumption of most people who            
 have lived there all their life is that it came after things were             
 buried and covered up after the tidal wave.  The Department of                
 Transportation & Public Facilities can't realign and re-pave the              
 intersection because the DEC requires digging out the whole area              
 and remediate the soil.  He asked, "At what point in time do we say           
 that the dollar value of what little bit of oil is in the ground              
 can stay there, the area can be paved over and -- basically, we're            
 talking downtown Kodiak where the whole area is paved over anyway;            
 it's not like it's an area where people are going to be digging in            
 it all the time."                                                             
 COMMISSIONER BROWN responded the department has new regulations               
 that are in the process of being scoped out with industry now and             
 will go out to public comment shortly that will allow that type of            
 risk assessment.  So instead of the black and white standards that            
 required that it be cleaned to a certain level before moving on,              
 these regulations will allow risk assessment to look at what are              
 the pathways to cause any harm.  If there's no drinking water                 
 systems nearby or surface water nearby, then it could be cleaned up           
 to an alternative level so it can essentially be encapsulated and             
 just state where it is.                                                       
 Number 1821                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said, "Well, I would hope that the risk              
 assessment then takes into consideration what you're really talking           
 about because we're talking about an area like Kodiak whose whole             
 downtown area was destroyed in a tidal wave and then reburied;                
 basically, covered over to start new construction.  You could start           
 at that intersection and say that you need to take this little bit            
 out of this intersection but when you continue to dig, you'd                  
 probably continue today right down to the water line in the boat              
 harbor.  So, I hope that the overall assessment is taken into                 
 consideration a little bit more when you're doing your risk                   
 COMMISSIONER BROWN replied it will be and added that DEC could                
 contact the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities on               
 this particular site and see if a plan could be worked out.                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN remarked that according to the Department            
 of Transportation & Public Facilities, they've been held up for               
 about four years trying to work out a plan with the DEC.                      
 Number 1863                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES noted that a similar problem exists at             
 the intersection of College and University in Fairbanks and the               
 holdup has been "haggling over" which state agency is going to be             
 responsible for the cleanup.  The university doesn't care which               
 state dollars go into the project; they just want the project                 
 completed.  He didn't know the details of this particular situation           
 other than it had been in a half-built condition for a long time.             
 He agreed with Representative Austerman in that there's a certain             
 point beyond which it's not economic to worry about it anymore, but           
 rather get on with some common sense solution to the problem.  He             
 remarked there was a similar issue that centers around placer                 
 mining and had to do with pumps and discharges.  There's a widely             
 held view in the placer mining community that the DEC requires them           
 in many instances to unreasonably discharge cleaner water into the            
 existing water bodies than is reasonable, both with respect to                
 arsenic content and the sediments.  He asked Commissioner Brown if            
 that was a major problem in her view and if there were a lot of               
 situations where this is an issue?                                            
 COMMISSIONER BROWN replied the EPA had just issued their new                  
 proposed MPDES general requirement for placer mining and it had               
 triggered a very negative reaction among the miners.  The DEC asked           
 EPA to meet with the miners and the department in Fairbanks to work           
 out a permit that the department wouldn't be in a position to                 
 certify as well because they had strong disagreements with the                
 proposed permit.  The department also believed it was unnecessarily           
 stringent and required a lot of paperwork that didn't buy them                
 environmental benefit, but one of the issues in the new permit is             
 arsenic.  She noted that it was a thorny problem because the                  
 state's water quality standards set arsenic levels at 50 for                  
 drinking water and 36 for aquatic life; these were considered safe            
 discharges.  Operators in the state of Alaska are not adding                  
 arsenic, unlike elsewhere in the country.  This is really just                
 natural occurring arsenic that may be compounded because by                   
 increasing the volumes of water where its present, there's a higher           
 level of it.  Nonetheless, the state's standards have 50 and 36 as            
 protective of health and aquatic life.  The federal national toxics           
 rule then came into play.  The department years ago asked EPA not             
 to apply that to arsenic, but they went ahead and did that.  She              
 said, "When they did that, they took -- it's a health based                   
 standard that they set arsenic levels at extremely low rates and              
 that's the problems the miners are now having.  The EPA has agreed            
 to reconsider the arsenic levels because it's a problem in many               
 places of the country that they've now got a requirement under the            
 national toxics rules that you can't even measure to -- it's below            
 detectable limits.  So, we're going to be asking the EPA to allow             
 us to go back to the standards that had been set in state law                 
 previously before the national toxics rule and until we can                   
 actually change all the federal standards to allow that to be the             
 operative one on permits.  So, arsenic is a legitimate problem, but           
 it's because of the national toxics rule and we just need to work             
 with EPA to get a common sense resolve on it."                                
 Number 2069                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "The other question I wanted to ask had           
 to do with the vehicle emissions program.  As you know, the                   
 legislature passed a law recently that allowed for doing the                  
 inspections every other year and I think an unintended consequence            
 of that was that or maybe it wasn't -- sufficiently appreciated at            
 the time, was that there are large fixed costs with the program for           
 the Fairbanks North Star Borough.  And so we're at kind of a                  
 loggerhead now where the borough says that unless you can increase            
 the fees, you can't go forward with the program and I've heard                
 people getting to the point of throwing up their hands and just               
 wanting to give the whole program back to you."  He asked                     
 Commissioner Brown what the current status was on that issue.                 
 COMMISSIONER BROWN said the department is trying to work with Mayor           
 Sampson on the issue.  She noted the department had raised those              
 issues in the discussion of SB 28 last year which changed the                 
 requirement to biennial.  The legislation was passed and the                  
 department is proceeding with it.  She thought it would require an            
 increase in fees so the fixed costs can still be paid for.  The net           
 to the consumer is about the same or it could actually be a small             
 savings to the consumer.  There is an option to solving the fixed             
 costs.  She thought the mayor was concerned there would be a                  
 perception of increased fees that would be unpalatable to his                 
 citizens, but the bottom line is the citizens would probably pay a            
 little less on a two-year cycle.  She added the department believes           
 this is a local government issue and should be managed at the local           
 level so that it's responsive to local issues.  Therefore, the                
 department is not encouraging that it be given back to them.                  
 Number 2164                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG referred to the coastal management program            
 and said the DEC is a regulatory authority and the coastal                    
 management is also a regulatory authority in a way that it just               
 takes in public policy.  In relation to that, he asked if the DEC             
 would be able to work with the coastal management program with                
 regard to the regulations as to who has priority?                             
 COMMISSIONER BROWN responded that in areas where there is more than           
 one agency involved in a permit, including a coastal district, DEGC           
 coordinates it and the DEC works with DEGC to ensure that all the             
 agencies are pooling together.  She added if it's a single agency             
 issue, then the DEC has the burden of making sure they follow all             
 of the ACMP processes.                                                        
 Number 2218                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN said it had been brought to his attention           
 by a member of the finance committee that there was some                      
 disagreement about the budget cuts and the elimination of the                 
 subdivision planning program.  He asked if there would be no                  
 subdivision plat review because of the budget cuts?                           
 COMMISSIONER BROWN replied the department would no longer do                  
 subdivision plan reviews; they would, however, continue to do the             
 others aspects of the sewage program which she had mentioned                  
 earlier.  She added that if it's to be done, the local governments            
 would need to pick it up.  Local governments have generally                   
 depended on the department to do the reviews and in most cases the            
 local government will not sign off on a plat unless the DEC has               
 signed off on it, but alternative systems will be needed.  She                
 noted that Anchorage currently does this and Valdez does a large              
 portion of it themselves.                                                     
 Number 2261                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he would like to discuss that with                   
 Commissioner Brown at some point because there seemed to be some              
 disagreement from a legislative perspective.  It has been his                 
 experience that often times an agency will eliminate a high profile           
 service that will cause the most public uproar which is sometimes             
 more posturing than reality.                                                  
 COMMISSIONER BROWN said there were two aspects involved.  One is              
 that general funds clearly related to this program were cut from              
 the budget in both the House and Senate Finance Committees.  The              
 other aspect is the authority to charge fees for it so the                    
 department would have sufficient monies with those two sources to             
 enable them to continue the program.  When the department went                
 through the reorganization, they found that a lot of other                    
 programs, including the 470 Fund, were sort of subsidizing this               
 program.  Now the program has to be paid for on its merits; either            
 it's worth doing and paid for or the department can't continue to             
 do it.  That's the dilemma the department is currently in.  Both              
 the general funds and the fee authority are needed.  Without those            
 the department can no longer do it.  The department's ultimate hope           
 was because other aspects of the domestic wastewater program are              
 fee based, that this one would also become fee based and they would           
 be able to work with municipalities to transfer them over because             
 it would be a revenue neutral package.                                        
 Number 2331                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES mentioned that discussions took place on the            
 Department of Natural Resources' budget with respect to the fee               
 issue.  He thought this was another example of the problems the               
 legislature has with budgeting where they actually discourage                 
 taking care of real problems because of the program receipts issue.           
 Number 2345                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that Commissioner Brown and her staff had             
 worked very diligently on trying to get resolution on the air                 
 quality regulations that are pending.  He asked if Commissioner               
 Brown could give a time estimate of finality.                                 
 COMMISSIONER BROWN said the department has finished the packet of             
 regulation changes that EPA required of them and after a long,                
 protractive negotiations process, the package is getting finalized            
 on the regulation changes that the stakeholders groups had worked             
 out with them.  She hoped those would go out within a week as long            
 as no new issues came up.  Now that it has gotten down to the fine            
 issues, she had urged the stakeholders to let them go out to public           
 notice where those fine issues could be addressed.                            
 Number 2390                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN thanked Commissioner Brown for her testimony and            
 asked if there were any other questions for Commissioner Brown.               
 Hearing none, he asked the wish of the committee.                             
 Number 2401                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved to forward the consideration of Michele           
 Brown, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation to              
 the joint session.                                                            
 SJR 37 - PRIMARY MFG OF PUBLICLY OWNED TIMBER                               
 Number 2414                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS accepted the gavel from Co-Chairman Green and            
 announced his intent to move SJR 37 from committee today.                     
 Number 2425                                                                   
 SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON introduced SJR 37 stating that its purpose             
 asks Alaska's Congressional delegation to exempt Alaska from the              
 commerce clause which prohibits primary manufacture in the state on           
 publicly owned timber.                                                        
 SENATOR TORGERSON said, "In 1990, Congress did adopt the Forest               
 Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act, which gave 11 of              
 our western states the exemption from the Commerce Clause, but for            
 whatever reason, Alaska was not included in that piece of                     
 SENATOR TORGERSON explained, "The spinoff of this is, Mr. Chairman            
 that's happened in my district, the state has just recently sold a            
 timber sale there which was purchased by an outfit from Oregon.  We           
 also had a sawmill that was shut down recently because of lack of             
 resource coming out of both the state and the Chugach National                
 Forests  We lost 140 jobs because of that and the consequences are            
 with this company from ... (CHANGE TAPE)                                      
 TAPE 96-57, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 SENATOR TORGERSON ... "should have been directed toward, or at                
 least, the opportunity of having it go toward the mill for primary            
 SENATOR TORGERSON stated, "In 1984, Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court           
 -- we used to have a primary manufacture law and the Supreme Court            
 struck that down as being unconstitutional because of this commerce           
 clause.  We also know that there are pieces of legislation pending            
 before Congress, amendments to the budget bill, etc., that would              
 grant this relief from the commerce clause as it reflects to state            
 owned timber.  This resolution asks for the inclusion of municipal            
 lands and also the University of Alaska lands."                               
 SENATOR TORGERSON said, "The three key words in this piece of                 
 legislation are regulate, restrict or prohibit.  It doesn't                   
 actually ask for the straight prohibition, it is asking that the              
 state of Alaska have the leeway in the municipality or the                    
 university to do one of the three.  It could be that they would go            
 ahead and export some or regulate it somehow or restrict it or                
 Number 053                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked why it took us so long to get to this             
 point.  He said he couldn't support this more strongly.                       
 Number 061                                                                    
 SENATOR TORGERSON related that his office had been surprised to               
 find this issue had never been addressed before, through a                    
 RON LONG, Seward Port and Commerce Advisory Board, testified from             
 Seward that the organization strongly supports SJR 37.  He said,              
 "The exemption that was granted may have made sense at that time              
 but we feel, at this time, that it no longer does.  We should have            
 a policy that conforms with the rest of the western states, and we            
 ask the House to go along with the Senate in asking our                       
 Congressional delegation to support this."                                    
 Number 124                                                                    
 ANTHONY CRUPI, Volunteer, Alaska Environmental Lobby, appreciated             
 the opportunity to testify.  He said, "The Alaska Environmental               
 Lobby strongly supports Senator Torgerson's resolution.  When                 
 timber is harvested on state lands, it makes sense to maximize the            
 number of jobs from each tree cut.  Exporting logs in the round               
 sends jobs out of our state and hurts the future of sustainable               
 timber industry in Alaska.  We strongly support this.  We                     
 respectfully ask one minor addition.  In addition to the state                
 lands, municipal lands and University of Alaska lands, we would               
 like to see `other trust lands' included in this resolution.  We              
 hope this resolution is passed in a timely manner, and we urge                
 Alaska's Congressional delegation to assist in passing appropriate            
 legislation in Congress."                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved that SJR 37 move from the House                   
 Resources Committee with individual recommendations.  Hearing no              
 objection, it was so ordered.                                                 
 HB 331 - POSTING OF BOND BEFORE LAND ENTRY                                  
 Number 202                                                                    
 SARA FISHER, Legislative Aide to Representative Gene Therriault,              
 said that HB 331 simply clarifies that the act of staking a mining            
 claim does not require permission of the surface owner or require             
 bonding where the surface is no longer owned by the state.  This              
 ambiguity has the potential of involving the department in                    
 resolving disputes from the mere act of staking.  Hopefully, HB 331           
 helps to avoid these potential future costs to the department.  She           
 invited questions from committee members.                                     
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any questions of the sponsor.           
 Hearing none, he announced the committee would hear testimony via             
 Number 259                                                                    
 JULES TILESTON, Director, Division of Mining & Water Management,              
 Department of Natural Resources, said this legislation was                    
 introduced late in the session last year and a support of the bill            
 analysis and a zero fiscal note had been forwarded at that time on            
 the knowledge that this bill would come up again.  The division               
 took another look at what they said last year and that position               
 still stands.  The division's basic concern is there is a potential           
 situation which could go back to Statehood where mining claims                
 located on property where the state no longer holds the title might           
 be in jeopardy by the mere fact that they did not have permission             
 from the surface owner to go in.  The division believes this is an            
 unreasonable and untenable risk.  He said, "Accordingly, we not               
 only support the bill, but we do recommend one addition and that is           
 the bill be effective retroactively to the date of Statehood                  
 because the basic statute was passed in the first legislature at              
 that point in time.  One other thing, posting requires a discovery;           
 discovery does not require in all cases -- you have a D-9 digging             
 up somebody's flower bed as an example.  With our remote sensing              
 technologies today, a lot of the discoveries are being done by such           
 things as the aeromagnetic studies in Fairbanks.  A lot of claims             
 have been properly located on that method so we're not talking                
 about something where private property is at risk, in my judgment."           
 Number 335                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he understood there was a lawsuit on               
 this issue and asked Mr. Tileston to describe the lawsuit and what            
 the retroactivity would do to that situation.                                 
 MR. TILESTON said he would give a brief overview.  There was a                
 court suit dealing with metal values associated with the AJ rock              
 dump.  There had been production and gold recovered from the rock             
 dump prior to the individual (indisc.) to go into staking.  There             
 was a dispute between the surface owners and the individual trying            
 to stake the claims.  The Superior Court made a ruling that the               
 staking could not take place without the consent of the landowner.            
 It was recently held by the Supreme Court.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if it was a private landowner who had             
 the land?                                                                     
 MR. TILESTON replied, "Yes, it was.  It was right there at Juneau."           
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if this bill would give permission for            
 people to go on private land to stake mining claims?                          
 MR. TILESTON responded the state maintains full and absolute right            
 to the subsurface minerals for any land the state has previously              
 owned.  He added that is covered under AS 38.05.125.  That                    
 reservation is a absolute right for the state to go in; it does not           
 give the absolute right to go in and damage another property and              
 that's what AS 38.05.130 is intended to protect.  This bill amends            
 AS 38.05.130 by exempting the physical staking, which is the                  
 posting of the corners from the bonding and permission                        
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked what kinds of things would be permitted           
 under staking?  For example, would a person be allowed to clear               
 survey line of sight to put stakes in?                                        
 MR. TILESTON replied, "No.  You could do your line by simply                  
 Number 475                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "Are mineral rights for example, say a               
 surface mine, similar to oil rights in that surface damages would             
 have to be paid?"                                                             
 MR. TILESTON said that was true and added AS 38.05.130 requires the           
 consent agreement and bonding for all surface disturbing uses                 
 associated with mining.                                                       
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if it was Mr. Tileston's feeling that                 
 staking would not be sufficient disturbance to cause any damages or           
 need to repay?                                                                
 MR. TILESTON affirmed that.                                                   
 Number 515                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked if a permit was needed to stake           
 a mining claim?  Also, wouldn't the individual have to furnish a              
 map of the claim?                                                             
 MR. TILESTON responded that permission was not required to stake              
 which is what was being discussed.  He added, "If you are going to            
 do something in the way of using mechanical equipment to actually             
 mine, you are required to have permission for that."                          
 Number 551                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES inquired if there are other instances, apart            
 from the AJ mine situation,  where this has been a problem.                   
 MR. TILESTON responded no.                                                    
 Number 566                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Steven Borell to present his testimony.               
 Number 569                                                                    
 STEVEN C. BORELL, P.E., Executive Director, Alaska Miners                     
 Association, Inc., testified from Anchorage that a letter of                  
 support for HB 331 could be found in committee member's packets.              
 He noted this bill doesn't change anything.  It maintains the                 
 status quo that the industry and the state has understood since               
 Statehood in that indeed the mining claim could be staked, but no             
 surface disturbance could take place until permission of the                  
 surface owner occurred.  He said, "That's the hallmark of the past            
 practice, of past interpretation and that's what this bill would              
 maintain in place.  It doesn't change anything at all in state                
 practice or interpretation.  To comment briefly on Representative             
 Davies' question previously, I agree with Director Tileston that              
 there has not, to my knowledge at least, been any other instances             
 than the one there at the AJ rock dump.  However, in your district            
 in particular, are areas where there could very likely be, and I              
 would suspect there will be, instances where say a small surface              
 stake has been - say 5 acres or 10 acres - is held by a surface               
 owner and the mining claim has been staked over a large area, and             
 somewhere off in the middle of this large area is this 5 acre plot.           
 Obviously, before any surface disturbing activity can take place,             
 that individual is going to have to concur in that.  But, we just             
 believe it's unreasonable that those minerals which have been                 
 reserved by the state would be sterilized, if you will, by the                
 requirement to have to have the permission of the surface owner               
 just for the mere purpose of staking the claim."  He invited                  
 questions from committee members.                                             
 Number 677                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES agreed there were many circumstances in his             
 district where there are even borough subdivisions on top of areas            
 that have valid, and in some cases, patented claims.  His concern             
 is that we don't want to set up a situation of introducing                    
 unnecessary conflict.  It was his understanding that the normal               
 practice is that a person going on someone else's property would at           
 least notify them and ask permission in a polite way, even if not             
 technically required by law.  He wondered if there shouldn't be               
 some reasonable notice required to a property owner before a person           
 goes on the property to avoid a situation of unnecessary conflict.            
 MR. BORELL commented he had seen no such conflicts in the past.  No           
 one has raised that as an issue and it has not been a concern.  He            
 added, "If you will, state mining claims are 40 acres and a 4-inch            
 by 4-inch wooden post, typically a small block of wood with a piece           
 of rebar to drive in the ground, with a block of wood sitting on              
 top of a piece of rebar, that forms a claim for them, so any                  
 disturbance that would be caused by an individual placing that 4-             
 inch by 4-inch block of wood and the little aluminum plate that               
 goes on it, I sure can't see that that's any damage."                         
 Number 790                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said his concern wasn't that damage was being           
 caused, but rather of perceived trespass.  He realized this hasn't            
 occurred very often.  He questioned why the statute was needed if             
 there wasn't a problem.  Also, if the statute was going to be                 
 changed in such a way that permits entry onto private property with           
 no requirement of notice or permission, he was concerned about                
 setting up a situation of trespass that could lead to hostilities.            
 MR. BORELL noted that statutory authority is in place currently.              
 The current need is because of the court case.  The danger is that            
 if the Supreme Court were to rule that the mining claims on the AJ            
 rock dump were void by virtue of not having permission from the               
 surface owner, all of a sudden throughout the Fairbanks district              
 there would be a multitude of court cases arguing that various                
 mining claims were void because the surface owner had not been                
 notified.  He added the problem is not with the status quo; the               
 problem is if the state Supreme Court were to rule that those                 
 claims were void.                                                             
 Number 890                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he understood that, but he thought Mr.             
 Borell was avoiding his question about reasonable notice.  He asked           
 if there was anything that would be harmful to the mining industry            
 to require some kind of reasonable notice?                                    
 MR. BORELL responded he wasn't trying to bypass the question, he              
 just failed to address it.  He said, "The situation will exist if             
 you have to give notice to someone, a spark - a light bulb is                 
 surely going to come on and they will then have pre-notification              
 that your personal energies and time and exploration throughout the           
 district have shown that there might be something valuable.  And if           
 they're told there might be something valuable, they are very                 
 likely to jump out there right quick and put their own claim                  
 corners down.  You would expect a prudent person to do that."                 
 Number 943                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that it's an awkward situation when the               
 mineral rights are different from the surface rights.                         
 Number 953                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES commented that perhaps something could be               
 worked out where the notice would prevent the private property                
 owner from staking.  He added there should be some reasonable time            
 limits involved, but he thought there should be some way to solve             
 that problem.  He was uncomfortable with the notion that a person             
 would expect someone to show up on their property without any                 
 Number 980                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there were lines shot and surveyed               
 when the properties were staked?                                              
 MR. BORELL responded that currently they are done just by a GPS               
 unit.  He added, "You'll position them and there will not be an               
 actual survey until such time as you go to perfect it - as you go             
 to put your -- obviously at a later date - put your operating plan            
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any other questions of Mr.              
 Borell.  Hearing none, he asked Mic Manns to testify.                         
 Number 1022                                                                   
 MIC MANNS, Representative, Paradise Valley Mines, testified from              
 Fairbanks that Paradise Valley Mines and Rich Hughes of the Ryan              
 Gold Mine supported HB 331.  He noted there are already laws that             
 require that before any surface disturbance by anyone on a piece of           
 property can take place, the person doing that must acquire both              
 bonding and insurance sufficient to pay for any damage or damages.            
 Number 1082                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any questions of Mr. Manns.             
 Hearing none, he announced that concluded the testimony via                   
 Number 1096                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved a conceptual amendment to make the bill             
 retroactive to Statehood since it appears this is the practice that           
 has been ongoing and understood by not only the industry but also             
 by the Division of Mining.                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if that would add a Section 2 with an                 
 effective date.                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that would allow for the drafters to work            
 it in and it would probably be Section 2.                                     
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was discussion or objection to the           
 conceptual amendment?  Hearing none, the conceptual amendment was             
 Number 1138                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed his ongoing concern about                     
 notification and requested the bill be held in committee to allow             
 time to think about an amendment.                                             
 Number 1174                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said in the interest of time remaining in this           
 legislative session, he made a motion to pass HB 331 out of                   
 committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal                 
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that would allow for an amendment in the              
 Finance Committee.  He asked if there was any objection?                      
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected.                                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote.  Voting in favor of             
 the motion were Representatives Austerman, Kott, Ogan, Williams and           
 Green.  Voting against the motion were Representatives Davies and             
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that CSHB 331(RES) was moved from the             
 House Resources Committee.                                                    
 HB 342 - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS                                            
 Number 1274                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, prime sponsor of HB 342, referred             
 to work draft CSHB 342, Version G, and reported that the                      
 subcommittee consisting of Representatives Austerman, Davies and              
 Ogan had met and reviewed the work draft dated April 9, 1996.  He             
 explained the changes as follows:                                             
      Page 1, line 7, add: "in writing" by the Environmental                   
                            Protection Agency.                                 
      Page 1, line 8, add: "or by substantially equivalent methods             
                           approved by the department."                        
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "This is an important adoption right            
 now.  It gives the department additional flexibility in terms of              
 looking at the methodologies to be used in establishing the water             
 quality criteria."                                                            
 Number 1342                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued to explain the changes.                     
      Page 1, line 14, add:  "Promptly, but no later than 12                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "This particular provision gave a               
 standard to the department that they had a 12-month period in which           
 to make adoptions of any regulatory changes made by the federal               
 Environmental Protection Agency and also added the word `promptly'            
 in case the question was, `why do we have to wait 12 months?'  So,            
 the word `promptly' was a spur to do them as soon as possible                 
 basically, but also gave them a deadline of 12 months, which we               
 feel is adequate in order to perform that task."                              
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 1, line 15, and said                 
 following the language, "after the effective date of a change" the            
 original language was "reduction in".                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "There has been some controversy                
 about this, but people have to understand that a change can go both           
 ways, a reduction can only go one way.  This gives the department             
 additional flexibility to change."                                            
 Number 1401                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the next change was on page 2, lines             
 2 and 6, delete "reduction", add "change".  This relates to the               
 actions on the part of the federal government.                                
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued that on page 2, line 10, add                
 "maintain the state's aquatic productivity;".  He explained this              
 was done at the request of the Department of Fish and Game to make            
 sure that those considerations were taken into account when                   
 applying water quality standards.                                             
 Number 1436                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 2, lines 15 & 16, the                
 words "the natural condition of the water" were inserted.  He                 
 emphasized this is an important addition to subsection (4) and                
 wanted to remind the committee that in adopting water quality                 
 standards, the department "may not require discharged water to be             
 of a higher quality, in a more restrictive use classification, or             
 otherwise cleaner than the natural condition of the water into                
 which the discharge is made."  He said this is the receiving water            
 and recalled this goes back to an earlier discussion between the              
 words "existing" and "natural."  Natural is intended to mean the              
 natural condition of the water or waterbody, not an existing                  
 condition.  Whereas, an existing condition could have been a body             
 of water which was polluted by human use and therefore that should            
 not be the standard of the receiving water; it should be the                  
 natural condition of the water.                                               
 Number 1490                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued to explain that this is very                
 important to understand that we shouldn't require that a better               
 than natural condition of water be the criterion that the permit is           
 granted under.  Therefore, we shouldn't be cleaning up streams that           
 are already dirtier by nature and not by man and that's the                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Which could though in some cases be                  
 cleaner than is existing."                                                    
 Number 1529                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 3, line 4, and said the              
 words "proposed standard or regulation" were clarified.                       
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said on page 3, lines 6 and 12, delete                
 "exposure profiles" before the words "hydrologic conditions".                 
 Number 1541                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that in terms of the review process             
 on page 3, line 16, insert "by August 1, 1997," to give the                   
 department adequate time, well over a year, in which to make their            
 review, and then on line 24 the deadline was set starting at the              
 legislation session, January 1, 1998, to report to the legislature            
 about how they have done under this policy.                                   
 Number 1591                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out these were the changes made in            
 the subcommittee.  He said there was substantial input and he                 
 thanked Representatives Austerman, Ogan and, in particular,                   
 Representative Davies for their participation.  He stated his                 
 office received a fax at 7:00 p.m. the previous evening from the              
 Department of Fish & Game.  Also, approximately eight minutes ago,            
 he received copies of amendments from the Department of                       
 Environmental Conservation.  He said based on the importance of               
 this legislation and the lateness in the session and also, after a            
 period of almost two weeks that this bill had been in subcommittee,           
 to receive these amendments at the 11th and 59th hour, he was going           
 to oppose the adoption of those amendments.  He noted this bill has           
 a referral to the Finance Committee because of its importance and             
 he would give due consideration to the recommendations and                    
 suggestions from the Departments of Fish and Game and DEC as to               
 their amendments.  He thought this bill had had sufficient work in            
 this committee and he appreciated the Chairman's interest in it.              
 I believed that Marilyn Crockett was on-line if the committee had             
 any questions.                                                                
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there were questions of the sponsor           
 or about the proposed changes.                                                
 Number 1689                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES related that he had brought to the chair of             
 the subcommittee a couple of concerns yesterday, and wondered if              
 the committee was going to deal with those.                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN had not seen the amendments.                                
 Number 1712                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN apologized, stating that he had not heard            
 back from Representative Davies and had been uncertain whether to             
 pursue them or not.                                                           
 Number 1729                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he wanted to propose three minor changes           
 on page 3.                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected that the committee had not                
 adopted the proposed committee substitute, version G.                         
 Number 1755                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved to adopt 9-LS1141\G as the working                
 document.  Hearing no objection, it was adopted.                              
 Number 1785                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES offered the following amendment:                        
      Page 3, line 3, Delete: "prepare a written analysis of"                  
                      Insert: "consider in writing"                            
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained that the proposed amendment gives             
 the language more clarity with respect to the construction of the             
 language and removes the word "analysis."  That is the substantive            
 part of it.  The consideration of the economic feasibility would be           
 there.  He said, "I think we heard testimony that the department              
 has strong concerns that they do not have all of the economic                 
 information because of not having access to the proprietary                   
 information of the companies potentially involved.  This would                
 allow them to consider the economic, as far as they could, but the            
 consideration might not be described as an analysis."                         
 Number 1908                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for questions on or objections to the                 
 proposed amendment.  Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.                 
 Number 1923                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES offered the following amendment:                        
      Page 3, line 9, Following the word "welfare;"                            
              Add: "to maintain the state's aquatic                            
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said this amendment would make the language             
 consistent with the language on page 2, line 10.                              
 Number 1963                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed and added the subcommittee had just            
 failed to include that language.                                              
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the semicolon would follow the               
 word "productivity."                                                          
 Number 1980                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections the amendment.           
 Hearing none, the amendment was adopted.                                      
 Number 1991                                                                   
 suggested that it read, Sec. 2. "TRANSITION REVIEW OF REGULATIONS."           
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was objection to the amendment.              
 Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.                                      
 Number 2041                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT referred to page 3, lines 24-26: "(b) the            
 Department of Environmental Conservation shall, by January 1, 1998,           
 report to the legislature concerning its review and proposed                  
 revisions required under (a) of this section" and asked the sponsor           
 to explain the intent.  He inquired if a briefing by the department           
 to the House Resources Committee would satisfy the report or is it            
 a written report?                                                             
 Number 2069                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG thought a written report confirming their             
 activities would be adequate.  He said perhaps a meeting with the             
 House Resources Committee to update them or deliver the report                
 without an exhaustive amount of testimony would be adequate.  He              
 didn't envision a major, burdensome and costly situation.  The idea           
 is a monitor to check the progress and to see at that time if any             
 statutory revisions were needed or if the department had discovered           
 any problems in the implementation.                                           
 Number 2139                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested the date should be January 15, because            
 the legislature doesn't convene generally, until the first week.              
 During Gubernatorial elections, the legislature doesn't convene               
 until the second week.                                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG assented saying that January 31 may be even           
 more appropriate.                                                             
 Number 2175                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN confirmed that Representative Rokeberg was                  
 proposing an amendment to change "January 1, 1998" to January 31,             
 1998," which is an addition rather than a deletion.  Hearing no               
 objection, it was so ordered.                                                 
 Number 2193                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT reminded the committee that over the last year            
 and a half, the legislature has taken a different approach to                 
 annual reports.  He said, "I hope that this does not fall into an             
 annual report category, where we are, basically, inundated with               
 another 50-page document that most of us probably will not read in            
 the first place.  If that is going to be the case, I'd suggest that           
 we follow similar lines that we have established with annual                  
 reports and just have the department make it available to us.  If             
 we are going to a written format, I would much rather see the                 
 department come before the Resources Committee and just give us an            
 oral briefing on where they are at with the updates."                         
 Number 2245                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out this is a one-time report, not            
 an annual report.                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT remarked that he had a number of one-time                 
 reports that ended up in File 13, because of time constraints he              
 didn't have the opportunity to sift through 40-50 pages.  It's                
 easier when the department comes in with the report and gives a               
 briefing or executive summary in a couple of minutes.  He felt it             
 was more meaningful to get that kind of treatment than to have a              
 report dropped on his desk that he wouldn't have a chance to read             
 until the interim.                                                            
 Number 2310                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he had no objection to a language              
 change whereby the report would be submitted to the chairmen of               
 House and Senate Resources Committees.                                        
 Number 2332                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said it was his understanding that changes           
 were made to subsection (b) so that on January 31, 1998, all the              
 legislature wants to know is have those changes worked and is                 
 everything going according to schedule; it doesn't say anything               
 about the department submitting a written report.  He pointed out             
 that paragraph be moot after January 31, 1998, so didn't see a real           
 problem with that.                                                            
 Number 2379                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT appreciated Representative Austerman's comments           
 and suggested that the committee add language that "the department            
 must brief the House and Senate Resources Committee by January 31,            
 1998.  He just didn't want any more written material...(CHANGE                
 TAPE 96-58, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS contended that the industry reads the                 
 written reports and they come before the legislature and tell us              
 how the department is doing.  He, too, couldn't read everything               
 that comes across his desk, but industry does read those reports              
 and they do call the legislature's attention to any problems.                 
 Number 070                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated, "If the report is made available by             
 that time, we always, in Resources anyway, have the Department of             
 Environmental Conservation in front of us for overviews.  It is               
 always the prerogative of the legislative committee to ask for a              
 briefing on a particular topic, in that context, or in the context            
 of a special meeting.  I am sure that the DEC would honor that                
 request without any problem.  I think as long as the report is                
 there, if we want to hear from them, we can just ask them to come             
 and talk to us."                                                              
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was discussion or proposed                   
 amendments, conceptual or otherwise.                                          
 Number 136                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT suggested that the Department of Environmental            
 Conservation come before the House Resources Committee by the                 
 January 30, 1998.                                                             
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN concurred stating that Representative Kott's                
 point is well made.  He asked if there were other questions of the            
 sponsor.  Hearing none, he announced the committee would begin                
 taking testimony.                                                             
 Number 209                                                                    
 JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health,                     
 Department of Environmental Conservation, noted that she had made             
 a note for January 30th on her calendar.  She said, "I do apologize           
 to the bill's sponsor for in delay in getting our proposed                    
 amendments to the draft committee substitute.  We just received the           
 bill on Monday and it took us a while to look at it with our                  
 attorney.  The one page that you have, kind of reflects our hallway           
 discussion and includes the concerns of the Department of Fish and            
 Game, as well.                                                                
 MS. ADAIR explained, "What I would like to do is go through the               
 things that DEC has and then I will try to address those from fish            
 and game, but I made need to get Geron Bruce up here to more fully            
 explain them."                                                                
 Number 267                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN notified the teleconference network that SB 199             
 would not be heard at this meeting.                                           
 Number 300                                                                    
 MS. ADAIR began her explanation of the proposed amendments:                   
      Page 1, line 12, add:                                                    
        (c) Except when setting standards for shellfish growing                
      areas pursuant to AS 03.05.011 and except as provided in                 
      AS 46.03.087"                                                            
 She said, "We propose on page 1, line 12, to make an exception for            
 the standards that the department sets for shellfish growing areas            
 under our authority in Title 3.  Shellfish growing areas, by                  
 necessity, need to have a more stringent standard, particularly,              
 for fecal coliform.  Shellfish are filter feeders, the                        
 contamination that may exist in the water accumulates in their                
 viscera.  They are eaten raw or only lightly cooked so they do not            
 get to the temperature to kill any bacteria.  In order to have a              
 classified shellfish growing area that meets the requirements of              
 the National Shellfish Sanitation Program, fecal coliform and other           
 contaminates have to have a lower level.  We just would like                  
 recognition here that in those areas, we will have a more stringent           
 standard than what you might find in other, more generally, used              
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the amendment, as written, would             
 take care of that.                                                            
 MS. ADAIR acknowledged that was correct.                                      
 Number 376                                                                    
 MS. ADAIR explained the next amendment was on Page 1, line 14.                
      Delete: "Promptly, but no later than 12 months,"                         
      Insert: "As soon as practicable"                                         
 She stated, "When the Environmental Protection Agency increases               
 their requirements, they don't necessarily require that we                    
 immediately adopt them, or that we adopt them within 12 months.               
 Sometimes, it's alright with the EPA if we just put those into the            
 next round of the permit revisions, which could be as long as five            
 years.  We do recognize, though, that if there is a reduction or              
 elimination of a federal requirement that industry would be most              
 interested in having us do that as soon as practicable.  We see               
 this as a way to cut that problem.  They will certainly be watching           
 us to make sure that we do adopt any reductions or eliminations in            
 federal regulations as soon as we possibly can.  But we don't think           
 that we need to also adopt any increases right away or necessarily            
 have this drive our priorities.  There may be legitimate reasons to           
 wait, it may not be that big of a deal.  It may be a minor change,            
 it may be something that we can roll into something else that we're           
 going to be doing in 18 months.  So, we would just like that                  
 flexibility to do it as soon as practicable; counting, of course,             
 on the Alaska Oil and Gas Association and other industry members to           
 be watching us to make sure that we really follow through."                   
 Number 477                                                                    
 MS. ADAIR explained the next proposed amendment was on page 2, line           
      Delete: "standard"                                                       
      Add: "criteria"                                                          
 MS. ADAIR said, "This refers to water quality standards set by the            
 Environmental Protection Agency.  The EPA actually doesn't set                
 water quality standards, they have water quality criteria.  So,               
 this is a corrected change where we delete the word `standard' and            
 replace it with `criteria.'  That is a significant change as far as           
 what the EPA actually does.  We think it's important.  It does not            
 change the impact or the goal of the bill, it's just a                        
 clarification to make it correct."                                            
 Number 518                                                                    
 MS. ADAIR continued her review of the proposed amendments:                    
      Page 2, line 10                                                          
      Delete: "maintain the state's aquatic productivity;"                     
      Insert: "the environment"                                                
 MS. ADAIR remarked, "The sponsor, I believe, stated that the term,            
 `state's aquatic productivity' was added at the request of the                
 Department of Fish and Game.  That was because it had been proposed           
 at the subcommittee level to delete the term, `and the                        
 environment.'  We would like to see that changed back so it would             
 say, ` protect human health and the environment.'  That is common             
 terminology used throughout Title 46 and it does encompass that               
 concept of the state's fish resources.  It could be other things              
 that may depend on a waterbody."                                              
 Number 563                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the amendment replaced the                   
 language, "maintain the state's aquatic productivity"                         
 Number 600                                                                    
 MS. ADAIR continued to explain the proposed amendments:                       
      Page 2, line 14, at the beginning of subparagraph (4)                    
      Add: "when site specific information is reasonably known or              
 MS. ADAIR stated, "We don't always have the information on the                
 natural condition of a waterbody and we wanted to clarify that this           
 wouldn't require us to go out and generate information.  This                 
 usually comes into play when you have a site specific water quality           
 standard and where the natural condition is important.  So, we just           
 wanted to make that clarification."                                           
 Number 665                                                                    
 MS. ADAIR her review of the proposed amendments:                              
      Page 2, line 28, amend subsection (b) to read:                           
      "(b) The department shall, when adopting a standard or                   
 regulation under (a) of this section provide with the public notice           
 draft of the proposal a written explanation that describes the                
 basis for the proposal which shall include                                    
 (1) the department's consideration of the economic feasibility of             
     the proposal;                                                             
 (2) the department's consideration of the technological feasibility           
     of the proposal;                                                          
 (3) if applicable, a finding that                                             
           (A) the water quality standard, discharge standard, or              
 method of measurement is reasonably required to protect human                 
 health and the environment; and                                               
           (B) hydrologic conditions or discharge characteristics              
 are significantly different in the state or in an area of the state           
 from those upon which the corresponding federal standard, if any or           
 regulation is based."                                                         
 MS. ADAIR stated, "We are proposing a revision on page 2, line 28,            
 subparagraph (b) which dictates how the department will adopt a               
 more stringent water quality standard, or a standard where there is           
 no federal criteria.  The reason here is, as written, this requires           
 that we hold a public hearing.  The Administrative Procedures Act             
 does not require an agency to hold a public hearing.  There may not           
 be sufficient interest to hold one and yet they are very expensive.           
 So, we would like to eliminate that requirement.  If it's                     
 necessary, if the public requests a public hearing, we would simply           
 follow the Administrative Procedures Act, and do that.  But We do             
 recognize that there is some information that people would like to            
 have available with the public comment draft of the regulations."             
 Number 714                                                                    
 MS. ADAIR proceeded, "Representative Davies did discuss this in one           
 of the amendments that has been adopted, takes care of this                   
 concern.  But, as drafted, on page 3, line 3, before Representative           
 Davies' amendment was adopted, we would be required to prepare a              
 written analysis of the economic feasibility of the proposed                  
 standard.  That's something that we just don't feel that we can be            
 successful at doing.  We do agree that we need to consider the                
 economic feasibility.  It may be that a given industry sector would           
 do an economic feasibility for our use, and we absolutely should              
 consider that, and we should let people know what we've thought               
 about it so they can correct it or give us additional information.            
 But we don't have the kind of staff that can do an economic                   
 analysis.  We have engineers and environmental specialists.  So,              
 what we propose is that, by giving you the language here, it would            
 require that we demonstrate, in writing, and provide this in a memo           
 form, perhaps with the public draft notice, that we have considered           
 the basis for the proposal; that we've considered the economic                
 feasibility and what that is, the consideration of the                        
 technological feasibility and, if applicable, a finding that the              
 water quality standard, the discharge standard or the method of               
 measurement is reasonably required to protect the human health and            
 the environment, and that the hydrologic conditions or discharge              
 characteristics are significantly different than the federal                  
 standard.  So, it gets to the same kind of information - a little             
 bit different and we think something that we can actually be                  
 successful at doing."                                                         
 Number 823                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS expressed concern about not being able to have           
 the economic feasibility (indisc.) proposed and brought before us.            
 He remarked, "I appreciate what you are saying that department                
 doesn't have the expertise for this or that, but there are people.            
 And if it is going to hurt the economic ... of a company, then I              
 think we should understand that and we should find out how it's               
 done and you're saying here now, that you will have that study                
 Number 978                                                                    
 MS. ADAIR replied, "Representative Williams, the way that this                
 would work, as we have proposed it, is that we would consider the             
 economic feasibility of the proposal if a company or an industry              
 sector did their own analysis of the proposal, then yes, we would             
 have to consider that.  If no one did, because, maybe it isn't that           
 big of a deal or it's not very important, or it doesn't really have           
 a big impact, then we would look at, to the best of our ability,              
 how we think this would impact industry.  We do this in our                   
 regulations now, particularly where we have fee based regulations             
 and we say, this is what we think it's going to cost to do this.              
 And, this is why.  Sometimes, we find out that we're very wrong,              
 and we go back and we change our proposal accordingly.  The solid             
 waste regulations are a perfect example of that.  We do the best              
 that we can and then we rely on the public comment that we get                
 back, the information that we obtain from industry to further that            
 and to flush that out better.  We would absolutely consider that              
 and explain how we considered it, what we thought about it, what we           
 did and how our proposal took that into account.  It wouldn't be an           
 economic analysis as we are reading it, in that more formal sense             
 of the word, because it's just not something we can do."                      
 Number 959                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS wanted assurance that it is taken into                   
 consideration.  He said, "If we have to be stronger here, I would             
 like to hear things that the government does and doesn't take into            
 ... the human factor, also, the economics factor."                            
 Number 978                                                                    
 MS. ADAIR remarked,  "We do too; we agree with that.  That's why              
 it's important to us that this be done in a way that we can                   
 actually be successful at accomplishing it.  And, we feel that this           
 does that and we can accomplish that goal."                                   
 Number 1001                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS commented, "There are times when a company               
 does not have the ability to pay for an economic study and if we              
 were going to amend this, as such, then I would like to see a                 
 little stronger language in there."                                           
 Number 1037                                                                   
 MS. ADAIR continued her review of the proposed amendments:                    
      Page 3, delete lines 24-26.                                              
 MS. ADAIR stated, "Mr. Chairman, we propose also, to delete the               
 reporting requirement.  As Representative Kott said, there are a              
 lot of reports that come to the legislature.  I think, just the               
 term `report' connotates something a little bit more massive and a            
 little bit more labor intensive than perhaps the word `memorandum'            
 or `briefing' might indicate."                                                
 MS. ADAIR continued, "The Administrative Procedures Act requires              
 that we send copies of any regulatory changes to all standing                 
 members of the legislature, all members of the Administrative                 
 Regulation Review Committee and all members of both resources                 
 committees.  So, any proposal that we would have as a result of               
 Section 2, - some of you may get two or three copies of it because            
 that's what the Administrative Procedures Act requires.  We are               
 always available to answer any questions, we certainly would be               
 available on January 30 or any other day next session to come                 
 forward and tell you how we have done this, what we have found,               
 what the proposals have been.  But, in an attempt to try to                   
 minimize the fiscal impact of this legislation, we would propose to           
 eliminate lines 24 through 26 on page 3."                                     
 Number 1097                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled that Representative Kott mentioned a               
 briefing to the joint sessions of the resources committees.  He               
 asked if that would that be permissible?                                      
 MS. ADAIR stated the department wouldn't have a problem with that,            
 if it were requested.                                                         
 Number 1119                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN assessed the list of proposed amendments stating            
 that he was not sure the committee was ready to accept each one or            
 the sponsor's position.  He suggested the committee go back through           
 the proposals and asked Representative Rokeberg to come forward.              
 Number 1134                                                                   
 MS. ADAIR offered an additional amendment concerning the                      
 measurements for sediment.                                                    
      Page 1, line 9, Following: (b)                                           
      add:  "Except as otherwise provided in AS 46.03.087,"                    
 MS. ADAIR noted, "There is the idea, on page 2, that we may have a            
 different method if we go through a process, but there is no                  
 exception on line 9 to that recognition on page 2.  We would                  
 propose at line 9 in the beginning that we add "except as provided            
 in AS 46.03.087" because that does recognize then that in that                
 section at subparagraph (3) which is at line 24, page 2, that there           
 is a process that the department can go through if we're going to             
 do something different."                                                      
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested that the committee start with that                
 Number 1184                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that having had a few more minutes to            
 look at these he had not changed his position on these amendments.            
 He added, "I think there is a situation where certain of these                
 (indisc.) and it does have another committee of referral.  Frankly,           
 my view of these amendments is that it totally eviscerates this               
 bill and makes it valueless (indisc)."  He felt these amendments              
 were a clear attempt to sabotage the intent of the bill.                      
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN agreed, "I feel that it is highly irregular for           
 these amendments to be brought at this time.  This bill was                   
 assigned to a subcommittee with the purpose of working out these              
 problems.  The department did not bring these problems forth during           
 that subcommittee process.  This late in the game, I would                    
 interpret this as being a tactic to delay or kill the bill.  I                
 would suggest that we pass the committee substitute, version G, out           
 of committee and allow the department and the sponsor of the                  
 legislation, to work out their differences and draft a committee              
 substitute for the next committee of referral."                               
 Number 1275                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN understood the discussion about the lateness of             
 the proposed amendments and the possibility of addressing them at             
 the next committee of referral because of the deadline.  These are            
 issues that should be considered in this committee but if we do               
 that, we will miss the deadline.                                              
 Number 1287                                                                   
 MS. ADAIR interjected, "It was our goal to eliminate the fiscal               
 notes on this bill so that it would not have another committee of             
 referral.  It wasn't our intent to try to kill this bill.  As I               
 stated, we only got the draft committee substitute on Monday.  Many           
 of the concerns that we brought forward in the subcommittee were              
 not addressed in the draft CS.  We turned it around as quickly as             
 possible and tried to do it in a consensus fashion.  We worked with           
 Alaska Oil and Gas Association and the Resource Development Council           
 yesterday on these amendments.  I was at my office last night until           
 about 8:00 p.m. on this and faxed them to Marilyn Crockett.  It was           
 our hope that we could then bypass the next committee of referral             
 and instead have it go right to House Rules.  So, I do not want               
 anyone to think that we're trying to kill this bill or derail it in           
 anyway.  That's not the intent at all.  We're trying to make                  
 something that we can work with, that we can be successful at and             
 still address the concerns as they have been expressed to us, as we           
 understand them."                                                             
 Number 1345                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS wanted to know if the department had                     
 participated in the subcommittee meetings.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded, "Yes, they were."                         
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked how long the bill had been in                      
 subcommittee - two weeks?                                                     
 Number 1365                                                                   
 MS. ADAIR replied that she had participated in one subcommittee               
 meeting via teleconference at which the department had proposed               
 language and waited for the committee substitute to come out as a             
 result of that meeting.  She added that's the committee substitute            
 that she got on Monday.                                                       
 Number 1396                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN received word from the Office of the Speaker that           
 the committee had an additional 30 minutes for its meeting.  He               
 said, "We have a 30-minute reprieve, maybe we should get to the               
 bottom of this."                                                              
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN summarized that Ms. Adair had been involved with            
 the subcommittee, had indicated the department's desires, she would           
 receive the subcommittee committee substitute and if there were               
 additional comments, she would make them at this hearing.                     
 MS. ADAIR clarified that she participated in only one subcommittee            
 meeting and didn't know if there were others.  She said, "We did              
 have proposed language and, yes, we thought we would see the CS               
 with a little bit more time.  We did find out yesterday that the              
 bill would be brought back up today."                                         
 Number 1462                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "Mr. Chairman, I was not aware -- my            
 concern is, I was under the impression from the input we had at the           
 subcommittee meeting that we had met almost all the concerns that             
 the department had brought to our attention at that time.  That's             
 the concern I had.  I apologize if I didn't understand correctly              
 but  Representative Davies was there -- really, I thought that we             
 had pretty well covered most of the things.  There may have been a            
 couple of technical points that we didn't cover -- that could well            
 be the case, but there was a number of major, substantive                     
 amendments here and I thought discussed them."                                
 Number 1496                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the sponsor was aware that by doing                
 these amendments there would be a zero fiscal note which would                
 allow bypassing the House Finance Committee.                                  
 Number 1510                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG appreciated that objective and added that             
 by creating a zero fiscal note, the department is creating a zero             
 Number 1522                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked the subcommittee chair, Representative                
 Austerman, if he was aware of the desires of the Department of                
 Environmental Conservation and were these issues discussed at the             
 subcommittee meeting?                                                         
 Number 1528                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained that he had not attended the               
 full subcommittee meeting, but he had indicated to Susan Braley               
 that the subcommittee would not meet until after the Easter break.            
 He asked her, at that time, to bring written comments on all the              
 changes they wanted in that bill.  He recalled that the DEC                   
 comments at that meeting were verbal.                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN did not want to cast any dispersions on              
 the department but he felt they had had ample time to submit their            
 concerns in writing.  He said, "To continue to wait until we bring            
 forward new versions, based upon conversations that we had and then           
 continue to want to change those, to me, appears to be a stalling             
 tactic.  I think we should move this bill out of committee."                  
 Number 1602                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any members of the Alaska Oil           
 and Gas Association in this meeting?                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied, "They were on teleconference."              
 Number 1611                                                                   
 MARILYN CROCKETT, Assistant Executive Director, Alaska Oil & Gas              
 Association, responded, "We did participate in the April 10th                 
 teleconference of the subcommittee.  That was the second meeting of           
 the subcommittee that was held.  We presented written proposals at            
 both of those subcommittee meetings.  The version G that you have             
 before you today, from our perspective and from my notes and                  
 recollections from the last meeting, the April 10th meeting of the            
 subcommittee, I believe incorporates the tentative agreement that             
 all of us reached at that time, without having the actual work in             
 front of us, obviously.  There were changes made during that                  
 teleconference on the 10th.  I believe this version, for the most             
 part, represents the agreements that we reached on that date."                
 MS. CROCKETT continued, "From AOGA's perspective, this bill as it's           
 drafted today, with some of the changes that have been suggested at           
 the committee meeting today, meets the goals and objectives that we           
 wanted to see in the original HB 342."                                        
 Number 1680                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if these issues had been brought before             
 the subcommittee.                                                             
 Number 1692                                                                   
 MS. ADAIR said, "All but the shellfish were.  We talked at length             
 about the problem with the economic analysis, which is one of our             
 biggest concerns.  The shellfish was one that frankly I didn't                
 think about until Fish and Game testified before the subcommittee."           
 Number 1710                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified that there was one subcommittee               
 meeting.  He said, "We didn't have formal language that we all                
 walked out of the meeting hand-in-hand, saying that this is what              
 we're going to go forward with, so when we got back the CS that's             
 in front of us, it was a very good faith effort on the part of the            
 sponsor to translate this into a piece of legislation.  I believe             
 that it got 90 percent of the discussion.  But there were still a             
 few things and as you see, I had to bring forward a couple of                 
 amendments of my own so that I thought the committee substitute               
 comported more closely to what we discussed.  And there really was            
 not - because we didn't have a second meeting of the subcommittee -           
 there wasn't an opportunity to review the legislation in the form             
 of legislation so that all the i's could be dotted and the t's                
 crossed.  I believe that most of the issues that are proposed here            
 in the DEC amendments are clarifications of discussions that we               
 actually had at that first, and only, subcommittee meeting.  So, I            
 don't think that it's out of place that DEC would come back at this           
 point in time with sort of their clarifications of the things that            
 we put into the bill in response to the discussions we had at the             
 subcommittee level.  I think that this is in fact, the only                   
 opportunity that's been had to do that and we adopted a number of             
 amendments that I proposed and in that same process, that we                  
 certainly should consider DEC's considered look at the CS."                   
 Number 1804                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN presumed for the sake of continuity, that                   
 committee substitute, Version (G), represents a fair interpretation           
 of the subcommittee's work.  He noted the committee now had before            
 them suggestion for several amendments, which would be considered.            
 Number 1818                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN brought forth the amendment on page 1, line 9,              
 and asked if committee members understood the amendment or if there           
 was any discussion?                                                           
 Number 1830                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT wondered if the DEC had discussed this                    
 amendment with the Alaska Oil & Gas Association.                              
 MS. ADAIR explained the proposed amendment was a clarification                
 suggested by the Department of Fish and Game.  The department                 
 thought it made sense because of the way the rest of the bill is              
 written.  Also, there is that recognition in the section on special           
 procedures on page 2, line 24, "regulation that allows the use of             
 a method that is not substantially equivalent..."  So, the                    
 department thought it would be a good clarification.                          
 Number 1867                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that the amendment speaks "right             
 to the heart of the bill."  He noted it actually has to do with the           
 controversy between settled solids and suspended solids.  This                
 language is requested so the department can do whatever it wants to           
 do in terms of its methods of measurement and determine whether               
 they want to consider settleable solids as well as suspended                  
 solids.  The legislation, as drafted in the committee substitute,             
 sets the standard for settled solids not suspended solids.                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recommended that the department come up               
 with the idea and the methodology that meets the concerns of the              
 people in the mining industry and the fishing industry and come               
 back next year and amend the statute.                                         
 Number 1919                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that the paragraphs before and after the              
 language in question have that exception.                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said if there is any deviation from the               
 language in Section 1, subsection (b), the mining industry will               
 remove their support of this bill.                                            
 MS. ADAIR stated that certainly wasn't the intent.  The department            
 would still have to go through the special procedures to do                   
 something different; they just saw it as a clarification.                     
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned whether the DEC felt the Imhoff Cone             
 Method would satisfactorily put the water...                                  
 Number 1974                                                                   
 MS. ADAIR interjected that she is not a water quality expert.  She            
 thought that was the method used today and the method that is                 
 planned to be used.  She didn't think that was the issue.  It was             
 her understanding that as the department reviews this, if there is            
 some other method that is approved by EPA, that the department                
 thinks would get them to a better result, then they would go                  
 through the special procedures on page 2 that give people the                 
 opportunity to comment on whether or not that was appropriate.                
 Number 2000                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG maintained his objection.                             
 Number 2011                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN reported on an earlier discussion on this            
 issue and related his interpretation that there is a problem if the           
 language is changed.  He deferred to Representative Davies.                   
 Number 2032                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt that both parties were correct.  He                
 remarked, "Logically, the exception language should be provided               
 here, but in fact if you talk to the members of the mining                    
 industry, they are violently opposed to having that option in                 
 there."  He did not recommend that the committee put this kind of             
 specificity in the statute and added they were writing water                  
 quality regulations in the statutes by doing this, and he thought             
 that was a bad thing to do.                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN recommended calling for the question.                     
 Number 2074                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that the amendment had not been offered by            
 a member of the committee.  He asked if there was an offer of an              
 amendment as discussed the representative from the DEC for page 1,            
 line 9?  Hearing none, the amendment was not offered.                         
 Number 2088                                                                   
 MS. ADAIR referred to the amendment on page 1, line 12, adding the            
 language, "(c) Except when setting standards for shellfish growing            
 areas pursuant to AS 03.05.011 and except as provided in AS                   
 MS. ADAIR explained, "This would allow us to continue to set                  
 different and more stringent standards for shellfish growing areas            
 which is required in the National Shellfish Sanitation Program                
 which we are required to follow under AS 03.05.011 to sell                    
 commercially grown shellfish interstate."                                     
 Number 2104                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that conceptually, had no problem with           
 the amendment but wanted to know what the citation .011 was and               
 didn't know what the impact of the language was of the language               
 that was not italicized.                                                      
 MS. ADAIR stated the language in italics is all that is being                 
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about the citation .011.                        
 MS. ADAIR explained that was simply the DEC's authority over                  
 seafood, food processing and other kinds of ... meat, dairy.                  
 Number 2134                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG had no objection to the amendment.                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved the amendment.                                      
 Number 2171                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN explained the amendment was to add "(c) Except              
 when setting standards for shellfish growing areas pursuant to AS             
 03.05.011 and except as provided in AS 46.03.087".  He asked if               
 there was objection to the amendment.  Hearing none, the amendment            
 was adopted.                                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN wondered if the chairman considered that             
 Amendment 1?                                                                  
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there had been several others; it would be             
 considered Amendment 4.                                                       
 Number 2178                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the amendment on page 1, line             
 14, which removes "Promptly but no later than 12 months" and                  
 replaces it with "as soon as practicable" and said he had worked              
 with the AOGA, and he would be happy to work with the department,             
 if there was some question about the draft of it.  He said, "If an            
 applicant requests `speed up' and we put a three month deadline or            
 something, I am willing to work with the department on this, but              
 right now, we don't have time to craft it, so I'd be happy to work            
 with the department to get some language that would accomplish the            
 same thing here."                                                             
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN assumed then that the sponsor would like to leave           
 the committee substitute the way it is.                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied, "At this point, yes."                        
 Number 2217                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN informed the panel that according to his notes,           
 the issue was raised in subcommittee but not addressed in the bill.           
 Number 2230                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN emphasized that not everything that was              
 wanted by the DEC or the AOGA would be (indisc.) could not be all             
 encompassing to all people.  He believed there were some things               
 that the legislature would have to make the decisions on.                     
 Number 2244                                                                   
 MS. ADAIR referenced the handwritten amendment to delete "standard"           
 and add "criteria,"  on page 2, line 1 and said the department see            
 this as a technical amendment only.  It was something their                   
 Attorney General had pointed out, but hadn't had the benefit of               
 reviewing this until this morning.  However, she believed this to             
 be a very important change since the federal government adopts                
 criteria that the department then adopts as a standard.                       
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN offered the amendment as Amendment 5.                       
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he had no objection.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES questioned the use of the word "standard"               
 throughout the bill asking if every other instance of the word                
 "standard" was correct usage.                                                 
 MS. ADAIR thought that was correct.  She said, "We have standards,            
 so any place we talk about state water quality standards, that is             
 correct.  If you talk about federal water quality, you need to talk           
 about criteria."                                                              
 Number 2300                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the committee had objection to the                 
 amendment.  Hearing none, Amendment 5 was adopted.                            
 Number 2306                                                                   
 MS. ADAIR said, "This one, the proposal that had been drafted for             
 the subcommittee's consideration, had public health and the                   
 environment.  At the subcommittee, the copy that we got had `and              
 the environment' crossed out so it would just have been a human               
 health standard.  The Department of Fish and Game said we have to             
 have more than just a health standard, how about `maintain the                
 state's aquatic productivity.'  We would propose that we go back to           
 human health and the environment.  It gets to the same place but it           
 just is consistent with other portions of DEC's statutes in Title             
 46.  So, again we don't think it's doing anything significantly               
 differed, it is question of consistency with other portions of our            
 The amendment is as follows:                                                  
      Page 2, line 10                                                          
      Delete: "maintain the state's aquatic productivity"                      
      Insert: "the environment"                                                
 Number 2340                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recalled this issue was discussed in                  
 subcommittee and understood that a compromise had been reached                
 because of testimony relating to inclusiveness of the environment.            
 He stated, "I would be willing to talk these people again about               
 that, but I have no comfort level accepting that.  I thought we               
 have made an accommodation, particularly, as it related to the                
 Department of Fish and Game's concern."                                       
 Number 2363                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN remembered that the language "maintain the           
 state's aquatic productivity" was put forth in subcommittee.  Now             
 the committee was being asked to take it back out.                            
 Number 2370                                                                   
 MS. ADAIR stated, "This was at the request of Fish and Game.  They            
 brought up the issue but I understand that they are now comfortable           
 with the changes made by Representative Davies' amendment that puts           
 it into the other part of the bill.  So, if they are okay with it,            
 we can live with the inconsistency."                                          
 Number 2384                                                                   
 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,                 
 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, commented the department is               
 comfortable with the language, especially, since Representative               
 Davies' amendment considered it in another part of the bill.                  
 However, he wanted to make clear that they were talking about the             
 aquatic productivity of the individual waterbodies in the state.              
 He said, "We expect to be maintaining those.  We are not talking              
 about a general statement.  We want to be able to maintain, as a              
 part of the water quality regulations, aquatic productivity of                
 individual waterbodies as well as the state's waterbodies, as a               
 Number 2409                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN remarked the department could work with the                 
 sponsor.  The chairman asked for the next amendment.                          
 Number 2420                                                                   
 MS. ADAIR referred to the amendment on page 2, line 14, which adds:           
 "when site specific information is reasonably known or available"             
 to the beginning of subparagraph (4).  She remarked, "As I                    
 understand what fish and game said and in talking with Susan                  
 Braley, with our water quality program, that we don't always have             
 the condition of the natural waterbody. So, when we have it, then             
 this comes into play."                                                        
 Number 2440                                                                   
 MR. BRUCE related that this is where the department was trying to             
 help with the fiscal note.  If the information is not available,              
 but they are required to go out and get it and make a                         
 demonstration, there will be very significant cost associated with            
 that.  He added, "So, we are trying to say, if you want to reduce             
 the cost, then provide us the flexibility to work with the                    
 information that is available; don't require us to go out and                 
 generate new information."                                                    
 Number 2486                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN remarked that adding the language to the                    
 beginning of (4) on page 2, line 14, reads funny.                             
 MS. ADAIR agreed that placing the language at the end would read              
 Number 2468                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN offered the amendment as Amendment 6.                       
 Number 2476                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "This is a land mine amendment.  I              
 appreciate the statement by the department to make this a zero                
 fiscal note but what they are doing here is suggesting that the               
 burden of proof, by subsection (4), shifts over to the Department             
 of Environment Conservation ... (End Tape)                                    
 TAPE 96-58, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued ... "I would be happy to sit down           
 here.  If we can have a modifier where a permittee may have some              
 requirement to provide some of this data and to assist the                    
 department, maybe we can modify that.  But as proposed, I just                
 seriously object to this."                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted there was a motion on the floor to which an           
 objection had been raised.  He asked if the objection was                     
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN maintained his objection.                                 
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote.                                 
 Number 045                                                                    
 Representatives Davies, Kott, Nicholia, Ogan and Green voted in               
 favor of Amendment Number 6.  Representatives Austerman, Long and             
 Williams voted against Amendment Number 6.  Representative Ogan               
 changed his vote from yes to no.                                              
 NOTE:  (The Committee Secretary inadvertently tallied the roll call           
 vote in favor of the amendment).                                              
 C0-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted the amendment passed.                                 
 Number 071                                                                    
 MS. ADAIR referred to page 2, line 28, amend subsection (b) to                
 read "(b) The department shall, when adopting a standard or                   
 regulation under (a) of this section provide with the public notice           
 draft of the proposal a written explanation that describes the                
 basis for the proposal which shall include                                    
 (1) the department's consideration of the economic feasibility of             
      the proposal;                                                            
 (2) the department's consideration of the technological feasibility           
      of the proposal;                                                         
 (3) if applicable, a finding that                                             
     (A) the water quality standard, discharge standard, or method             
 of measurement is reasonably required to protect human health and             
 the environment; and                                                          
     (B)  hydrologic conditions or discharge characteristics are               
 significantly different in the state or in an area of the state               
 from those upon which the corresponding federal standard, if any or           
 regulation is based."                                                         
 MS. ADAIR related that there are two substantive changes: (1)                 
 eliminates the requirement for a public hearing; and (2) there is             
 a change from preparing a written analysis of economic feasibility            
 to consideration of the economic feasibility.  This section has               
 been changed somewhat by the previous amendment which works for the           
 department as well.  She thought the reorganization flows a little            
 bit better.                                                                   
 Number 112                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the whole idea of the public hearing             
 was not brought up in the subcommittee.  He thought there may be              
 some merit but he had not had a chance to consider it.  The other             
 issues that relate to the subsection (A) and (B) language, he was             
 not certain as to their effect.  As a result, he said he would be             
 happy to work with the department on that but he objected to this             
 amendment.  He just didn't understand it.                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN indicated that he had not had a chance to            
 read the amendment and didn't know what the effect would be.                  
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recommended that the department work this out               
 with the sponsor before the next committee of referral.                       
 MS. ADAIR said the last amendment was on page 3, delete lines 24-             
 Number 149                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES requested to move a different amendment.                
 Following Representative Kott's lead, amend lines 24 and 25 on page           
 3 to read:  "The Department of Environmental Conservation shall by            
 January 31, 1998, brief the Resources Committee of the House and              
 Senate of the Legislature concerning its review and proposed                  
 revisions required under (a) of this section."                                
 Number 179                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked to amend the language to read, "the joint             
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that is an additional requirement, it              
 could be joint session or not, depending on the committees.                   
 Number 186                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG had no objection.                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved his amendment.                                    
 Number 190                                                                    
 MS. ADAIR asked if the committee envisioned that the department               
 make the offer to brief the House and Senate Resources Committees.            
 She said, "We cannot compel you to listen to us.  We're happy to              
 send a letter saying we're ready to brief you, whenever you are               
 ready to listen to us and to have that sent to you by the 31st of             
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES considered "shall offer" as a friendly                  
 Number 212                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were objections to Amendment 7?              
 Hearing no objection, Amendment 7 was adopted.                                
 Number 217                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to rescind action on Amendment 6 and                
 revote the issue.                                                             
 C0-CHAIRMAN GREEN and Representative Nicholia objected.                       
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote.                                 
 Representatives Austerman, Ogan and Williams voted in favor of the            
 motion.  Representatives Davies, Kott, Long, Nicholia and Green               
 voted against the motion.                                                     
 Number 253                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that CSHB 342(RES) am move from the House           
 Resources Committee with individual recommendations and attached              
 fiscal note.                                                                  
 Number 267                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that since Amendment 6 was                  
 adopted by the committee, he wanted the department to publicly                
 state whether they were going to maintain or offer a zero fiscal              
 MS. ADAIR replied, "I think so."                                              
 Number 280                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there was a motion on the floor to move the            
 bill from committee.                                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved to zero out the fiscal note.                      
 Number 288                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to rescind his motion to move the bill              
 from committee.                                                               
 Number 292                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved that CSHB 342 (RES) am move from the              
 House Resources Committee with a zero fiscal note.  Hearing no                
 objection, it was so ordered.                                                 
 THE CHIEF CLERK 04/17/96.                                                     
 There being no further business to come before the House Resources            
 Committee, Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 10:37 a.m.                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects