Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
05/03/2019 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB43 | |
| HB138 | |
| HB116 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 43 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 116 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 3, 2019
1:19 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Lincoln, Co-Chair
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Dave Talerico
Representative George Rauscher
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sara Rasmussen
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 43(FIN)
"An Act extending the termination date of the Big Game
Commercial Services Board; relating to a person's eligibility to
hold a registered guide-outfitter license, master guide-
outfitter license, class-A assistant guide license, assistant
guide license, or transporter license; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 43(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 138
"An Act requiring the designation of state water as outstanding
national resource water to occur in statute; relating to
management of outstanding national resource water by the
Department of Environmental Conservation; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 116
"An Act relating to the renewal or extension of site leases for
aquatic farming and aquatic plant and shellfish hatchery
operations."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 43
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND BIG GAME BOARD; OUTFITTER LICENSE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WILSON
02/04/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/19 (S) RES, FIN
02/20/19 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/20/19 (S) Heard & Held
02/20/19 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/27/19 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/27/19 (S) Moved SB 43 Out of Committee
02/27/19 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/01/19 (S) RES RPT 4DP 1NR 1AM
03/01/19 (S) DP: BIRCH, KIEHL, COGHILL, GIESSEL
03/01/19 (S) NR: BISHOP
03/01/19 (S) AM: REINBOLD
03/13/19 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FIN 532
03/13/19 (S) Heard & Held
03/13/19 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/29/19 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FIN 532
03/29/19 (S) Heard & Held
03/29/19 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/09/19 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FIN 532
04/09/19 (S) Moved CSSB 43(FIN) Out of Committee
04/09/19 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/10/19 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 4NR NEW TITLE
04/10/19 (S) DP: VON IMHOF, MICCICHE, WILSON
04/10/19 (S) NR: STEDMAN, SHOWER, WIELECHOWSKI,
BISHOP
04/17/19 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/17/19 (S) VERSION: CSSB 43(FIN)
04/22/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/22/19 (H) RES, FIN
04/29/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/29/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/19 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/03/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 138
SHORT TITLE: NATIONAL RESOURCE WATER DESIGNATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KOPP
04/17/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/17/19 (H) RES, FIN
04/29/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/29/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/19 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/03/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 116
SHORT TITLE: AQUATIC FARM/HATCHERY SITE LEASES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STORY
03/27/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/27/19 (H) FSH, RES
04/12/19 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
04/12/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/12/19 (H) FSH, RES
04/16/19 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/16/19 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/23/19 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/23/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/23/19 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/25/19 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/25/19 (H) Moved SSHB 116 Out of Committee
04/25/19 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/26/19 (H) FSH RPT 7DP
04/26/19 (H) DP: TARR, VANCE, KOPP, EDGMON, NEUMAN,
KREISS-TOMKINS, STUTES
05/03/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR DAVID WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as the sponsor of CSSB 43(FIN),
restated the purpose of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as the sponsor of HB 138, provided
additional information for the committee to review.
JENNIFER CURRIE, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 138.
EARL CRAPPS, Manager
Domestic and Industrial Utilities Section
Wastewater Discharge Authorization Program
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 138.
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 138, provided a
PowerPoint presentation titled "Tier 3 Designation Impacting
Community Development."
REPRESENTATIVE ANDI STORY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as the sponsor of SSHB 116,
introduced the bill.
GREG SMITH, Staff
Representative Andi Story
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Story, sponsor,
answered questions related to SSHB 116.
GAROLD "FLIP" PRYOR, Fish and Game Coordinator
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SSHB 116.
MARTY PARSONS, Director
Central Office
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SSHB 116.
JULIE DECKER, Executive Director
Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc. (AFDF)
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 116.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SSHB 116.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:19:41 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHN LINCOLN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:19 p.m. Representatives Tuck,
Hannan, Spohnholz, Hopkins, Tarr, and Lincoln were present at
the call to order. Representatives Talerico and Rauscher
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SB 43-EXTEND BIG GAME BOARD; OUTFITTER LICENSE
1:20:36 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN announced that the first order of business
would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 43(FIN), "An Act extending the
termination date of the Big Game Commercial Services Board;
relating to a person's eligibility to hold a registered guide-
outfitter license, master guide- outfitter license, class-A
assistant guide license, assistant guide license, or transporter
license; and providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN stated that the committee had not received any
amendments for CSSB 43(FIN) and said it is the intention of the
co-chairs to take final action on the bill today.
1:21:11 PM
SENATOR DAVID WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the
sponsor of CSSB 43(FIN), said the Big Game Commercial Services
Board provides a valuable service to the community and the
state. He further said the board plays an important role in
managing the activities of the commercial game hunters and the
interests of the state's wildlife resources. He thanked the
committee for hearing the bill.
1:21:56 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to report CSSB 43(FIN) out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
1:22:15 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:22 p.m. to 1:23 p.m.
1:23:26 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked whether there was any objection to the
motion. [There being no objection, CSSB 43(FIN) was reported
from the House Resources Standing Committee.]
1:22:17 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:22 p.m. to 1:26 p.m.
HB 138-NATIONAL RESOURCE WATER DESIGNATION
1:26:47 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 138, "An Act requiring the designation of
state water as outstanding national resource water to occur in
statute; relating to management of outstanding national resource
water by the Department of Environmental Conservation; and
providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN stated that this is the bill's second hearing
before the committee and that at the first hearing the committee
took invited and public testimony. He said the co-chairs do not
intend to move the bill out of committee today.
1:27:18 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN closed public testimony on HB 138.
1:27:27 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN noted that the following questions were posed
by committee members at the bill's first hearing: 1) how other
states designate Tier 3 waters and its impacts to local
municipalities; 2) whether the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) currently has the authority to designate Tier
3 waters, and 3) how other states designate Tier 3 waters. He
directed attention to the following documents in the committee
packet: a legal memorandum regarding designating a Tier 3
waterbody by ballot measure, a memorandum from DEC on how other
states designate Tier 3 waters, and a [legal] memorandum
regarding the [current] statutory authority of DEC to designate
Tier 3 waters.
1:27:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 138, said the aforementioned memorandums should answer the
committee's questions.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:29:12 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN inquired whether Ms. Currie of the Department
of Law (DOL) could describe the legal memorandums.
JENNIFER CURRIE, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Environmental Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of
Law (DOL), replied that those are not her memorandums and it
might be more appropriate for Legislative Legal Services to
introduce them.
CO-CHAIR TARR said the committee would like to go over the same
two things with the DOL that are in the legislative legal memos
because at the first hearing there were some points of
disagreement and the committee wants to ground truth it with
DOL. Regarding the first issue of whether a designation could
take place through a citizen initiative, she related that Alaska
Legal Services says no because of the common property resource
allocation issue. In regard to the second issue of whether DEC
currently has the authority to designate [Tier 3 waters], she
related that according to Legislative Legal Services, the
department does have that authority. She requested the DOL's
response or the administration's position on those two matters.
1:30:46 PM
MS. CURRIE addressed whether HB 138, as written, would prohibit
initiatives from being filed with respect to designation of Tier
3 waters. She responded:
Legislation doesn't have the ability to cut off ...
the right to file an initiative. And so the
Department of Law plays an integral role in deciding
whether or not an initiative is an appropriation. And
at this point, we're not in a position to adjudicate a
hypothetical situation where a Tier 3 might be ...
brought forward through initiative, but I wouldn't say
that it cuts off the opportunity.
1:31:51 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR drew attention to the memorandum in the committee
packet dated May 1, 2019, from Emily Nauman, Deputy Director,
Legislative Legal Services, regarding Outstanding National
Resource Water: Initiative. She read aloud the first two
paragraphs on page 1, which state [original punctuation
provided]:
You asked whether, if HB 138 passed, the law would
preclude designation of outstanding national resource
water by initiative.
The short answer is, under the recent Alaska Supreme
1
Court holding in Mallott v. Stand for Salmon, an
initiative probably could not be used to designate
outstanding national resource water without violating
art. XI, sec. 7 of the Constitution of the State of
Alaska, regardless of whether HB 138 passes.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked whether Ms. Currie is saying that the DOL's
position is that that is incorrect.
MS. CURRIE answered, "I would say that the Department of Law's
position is that whether or not it was an appropriation would
depend on the facts of the initiative itself and we're not
prepared to offer an opinion about whether every Tier 3 water
designation brought by initiative would be an appropriation."
1:32:49 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN offered his understanding that, if the question
is set aside of whether a Tier 3 waterbody can be designated by
ballot initiative, the main underlying point is that any sort of
statutory change wouldn't have an impact on the ability for
citizen-led initiatives to take place.
MS. CURRIE replied, "I believe that's correct."
1:33:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN recounted Ms. Currie's statement that Ms.
Currie was unclear as to whether all ballot initiatives that
would do Tier 3 designation would be found unconstitutional.
She requested Ms. Currie to elaborate on the circumstances for
why some would and some would not.
MS. CURRIE responded:
I believe that the individual circumstances of a Tier
3 designation would or could affect whether or not the
Department of Law would determine that it was an
appropriation or not. And so I think that we can't
wholeheartedly say, as [Legislative Legal Services]
has, that it's likely that every initiative brought to
designate a Tier 3 would be an appropriation.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said that that is the point she is
confused by. She requested a hypothetical example of how one
designation could be an appropriation and another one wouldn't
be an appropriation.
MS. CURRIE answered she is hesitant to do that because the
Department of Law has a distinct role in determining whether or
not an initiative is an appropriation or not. So, she
continued, she wouldn't want to opine about that without
something concrete being proposed.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated she is unsure of what would be the
legal factors that would determine whether or not it is an
appropriation. She asked whether it would depend on the size of
the river, the acreage impacted, the number of people affected,
the cost, or the amount of the legal taking.
MS. CURRIE replied that she thinks all of those things could be
factors. She said she also thinks that technology, geography,
and many other things could come into the equation.
1:36:28 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR remarked that this is very confusing and said the
committee had hoped to work through these details. She
requested Ms. Currie's reaction to page 2, first paragraph, of
Ms. Nauman's May 1, 2019, legal memo, which states in part
[original punctuation provided]:
The department has described the standard; "if a water
were to be designated by the state as a Tier 3 water,
new or increased discharges that would lower or
degrade the existing water quality would not be
6
allowable unless they were temporary or limited."
Because this standard would likely completely prevent
the legislature from permitting projects that result
in the permanent destruction of outstanding national
resource water, a court is likely to find that an
initiative nominating outstanding national resource
7
water constitutes an unconstitutional appropriation.
MS. CURRIE responded that she disagrees. She continued, "I
disagree that there is a way to categorically say that, without
having a specific river to consider."
CO-CHAIR TARR stated it is interesting to have two conflicting
thoughts on this. She said she wants to ensure that there is
always an opportunity for citizen participation, whichever route
the legislature chooses. This is a challenge, she continued,
given [Legislative Legal Services] says that at least through
this process that wouldn't be a way for the citizens to
participate, but Ms. Currie is saying that it depends. She
inquired whether Ms. Currie could look at the current five
nominations and evaluate those.
MS. CURRIE answered she thinks it would be inappropriate for the
Department of Law to opine on the rivers that have been proposed
when they haven't been proposed by initiative, because if they
were to come by initiative and DOL were to have already offered
an opinion that would be prejudicial.
CO-CHAIR TARR offered her appreciation for Ms. Currie's answer.
1:39:57 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:40 p.m. to 1:46 p.m.
1:46:16 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN brought attention to the memorandum in the
committee packet dated May 2, 2019, from Emily Nauman, Deputy
Director, Legislative Legal Services, regarding the statutory
authority of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
to designate Outstanding National Resource Water (ONRW). He
read aloud page 2, paragraph 2, first sentence, which states
[original punctuation provided]:
Ultimately, I believe it is likely a court would find
that the department has the statutory authority to
designate or manage a water as an ONRW.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked Ms. Currie if she has read this memo.
MS. CURRIE replied she looked at the documents available to her
two hours ago, but this memorandum was not among them. She said
she has since looked at the memo briefly, but hasn't had a
chance to go into it in depth.
1:47:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN drew attention to the memorandum in the
committee packet dated May 3, 2019, from Earl Crapps, Department
of Environmental Conservation (DEC), regarding a review of other
states' approach to Tier 3. She read aloud from the last
sentence in the memo, which states [original punctuation
provided]:
Currently, the department is aware of four states:
Idaho, Indiana, Maine and Montana, where the authority
for Tier 3 designation resides with the Legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether in any of those four
states it is exclusively a legislative designation or whether
there is a process that those legislatures must use to make that
determination.
1:47:57 PM
EARL CRAPPS, Manager, Domestic and Industrial Utilities Section,
Wastewater Discharge Authorization Program, Division of Water,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), responded that
for those four states it is not exclusive, there is a process
before legislative approval.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN presumed the process isn't the same in
each of the four states and requested Mr. Crapps to describe the
process for each state prior to a legislative designation.
MR. CRAPPS answered that for the most part in general there is
an agency, board, or commission review before those nominations
are then forwarded to the legislature for final approval.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether those legislatures are
looking at a score and an evaluation that are done for
designation by an agency, board, or commission. She further
asked whether receiving a certain score is required to pursue
the designation or whether the legislature has total latitude
regardless of what the agency, board, or commission recommends.
MR. CRAPPS offered his understanding that the legislature has
the latitude regardless of what is provided to it.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired as to the consistency of
complying with the recommendations given to the legislatures in
those states.
MR. CRAPPS replied it would be widely varied. For example, he
continued, Idaho is one of the four states identified and
Idaho's legislature has not yet designated a Tier 3 water.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked how long Idaho has had its process
in place.
MR. CRAPPS responded it varies by state and he will have to
provide that information to the committee at a later date.
1:50:57 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR referenced the May 2, 2019, Legislative Legal
Services memorandum, and stated that there is conflicting
information as to whether DEC can currently do this and whether
the legislation is necessary. She asked whether the
administration has a position on that.
MS. CURRIE answered that DOL's position is that it isn't as
clear a conclusion as the memorandum would present. The reason,
she said, is that the designation of a Tier 3 water contains
many other factors besides water quality and purity, which is
what DEC was delegated authority to make decisions on. Because
of that, she continued, DOL thinks it is unclear as to whether
DEC currently has the authority to do those designations.
1:52:23 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN stated there is a need for more time to review
the information. He said the Alaska Municipal League (AML) has
prepared a presentation for today in response to the committee's
questions at the bill's first hearing [on 4/29/19].
1:52:53 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR related that the bill as originally introduced in
the other body [SB 51] was supported by the administration. In
[SB 51], she continued, designation had to be reviewed by three
departments and then go to the legislature for approval. She
posed a scenario in which there would be an opportunity for
agency designation or legislative approval and pointed out that
in this scenario citizens could go to the legislature if they
believed an agency was being unresponsive. She asked whether
the Department of Law has a position or thoughts on the idea of
this kind of a dual process.
MS. CURRIE replied she would have to see the wording of any
amendment and does not have an opinion one way or the other.
1:54:18 PM
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), explained that his PowerPoint presentation titled "Tier 3
Designation Impacting Community Development" is a follow-up to
his 4/29/19 testimony on HB 138. Turning to slide 2, he said
his starting point is similar to the Department of Law's in
regard to "adjudicate hypotheticals," in that AML is being asked
"to determine ... what that impact looks like for a community
without that community and that question in front us." He said
the bill, as he understands it, is to determine whether the
legislature is the appropriate body to make decisions related to
Tier 3 designations. Separately and differently, it is not
about whether an actual Tier 3 designation has impact or value
or what those would be, he continued.
MR. ANDREASSEN stated he is basing a lot of his understanding on
the work done by DEC and that slide 3 is a snapshot of a number
of DEC documents related to Tier 3 designation. He said the
first statement is the starting point and read it aloud: "If a
water were to be designated by the state as a Tier 3 water, new
or increased discharges that would lower or degrade the existing
water quality would not be allowable unless they were temporary
or limited." This impacts communities in many different ways,
he continued, and across the board across the state.
1:56:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said it is pretty well known that the
legislature has the ultimate decision making authority to use
specific public assets for specific purposes. He asked whether
what is being reviewed today is that the legislature does have
that authority.
MR. ANDREASSEN replied that that is his understanding of the
bill's intent. He said the question asked of him was the
municipal impact, or the relationship between municipalities and
local governments and HB 138.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN related that there was a question at the bill's
first hearing on the impacts to municipalities for different
types of projects and that Mr. Andreassen had agreed to follow
up with answers to those questions.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK drew attention to the first bullet point on
slide 2, which states: "The question raised by HB138 is whether
the Legislature is best-suited to determine impact ...." He
said he thinks the legislature has the ultimate decision just
naturally and by the state's constitution. He noted he was
unsure whether it was this issue that would be reviewed today or
the impact on municipalities.
1:57:48 PM
MR. ANDREASSEN moved to slide 4 and resumed his presentation.
He said the roles of municipalities are many and so he looked at
the 165 cities and boroughs that are members of AML that are
incorporated as cities or boroughs, or as political subdivisions
of the state, and examined their intersection with water. He
reported that 112 municipalities have the power to manage their
water systems, 111 have the power to manage and have
responsibility for sewer and wastewater, 72 have adopted the
power to manage their ports and harbors, 109 have adopted the
power to manage their landfills and solid and hazardous waste,
108 have adopted powers related to road construction and
maintenance, and 2 have adopted powers related to flood control.
Each of these intersects with a Tier 3 designation, he pointed
out. However, he added, it is not across the board in terms of
how municipalities have adopted powers - only 12 local
governments have no powers related to any of these, so 7 percent
aren't responsible in a way that intersects with a Tier 3
designation, and 93 percent of city and borough governments in
the state would potentially be affected by Tier 3 designation.
Additionally, he noted, AML's understanding is that fish waste
or processing facilities and other things upon which communities
might depend as a tax base could be impacted, as well as gravel
pits for local infrastructure, road construction, and building
materials. Further, he added, there are questions around barge
traffic or fuel delivery to the extent that they are not
temporary impacts.
1:59:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether AML looked at the five
current nominations for rivers and how many municipalities or
organized governments those intersect with.
MR. ANDREASSEN responded he has a forthcoming slide that will
address that.
2:00:10 PM
MR. ANDREASSEN continued his presentation and addressed slides
5-7. He said he looked at the Village Safe Water program, which
addresses other communities beyond incorporated cities that
might have water and wastewater needs, and that the slides
depict the priority projects listed within the program. He
pointed out that a number of communities are waiting on first
service or upgrades to service, both of which could potentially
add to discharge related to waterbodies. So, he said, it is
incredibly significant to incorporated cities and boroughs and
communities around the state, including those that are still
waiting for water and wastewater management. He suggested that
this is probably something better for DEC to follow up on in the
future as HB 138 is further considered.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether first service means the
village currently has no municipal or local government water
service and therefore individual homeowners would be using honey
buckets or would have septic systems or wells of their own.
MR. ANDREASSEN answered that that is his understanding. He
added, "It might be less that there is no municipal service or
there is no service in that community, or that there is an
expansion of service in the community different than an upgrade
to those facilities."
2:02:23 PM
MR. ANDREASSEN turned to slide 8 and discussed the communities
that could be potentially impacted by the current nominations
for Tier 3 designation. He qualified he doesn't have the [five]
Tier 3 nominations in front of him, but that the communities on
slide 8 are near to, or related to, nominated waterbodies. He
said the slide illustrates the different types of communities
(different powers, obligations, and responsibilities) related to
any one waterbody. He qualified he doesn't have a clear picture
of the Chandalar River, but noted [Fort Yukon] is incorporated,
in an unorganized borough, with responsibilities [for water,
landfill, and solid waste]; and [Venetie and Beaver] are
unincorporated so don't have responsibilities, and are in
unorganized boroughs. Regarding the Yakutat Forelands, he said
the City and Borough of Yakutat has a full suite of
responsibilities [sewer, water, landfill, ports/harbors, roads],
and has an ordinance objecting to the nomination. Regarding the
Chilkat River, he stated that the Haines Borough is incorporated
[with responsibilities of sewer, piped water, ports/harbors,
roads] and that Klukwan is unincorporated in an unorganized
borough. Regarding the Koktuli River, he said the different
communities have different responsibilities [Newhalen and
Nondalton are each responsible for sewer, water, landfill,
roads, and Lake and Peninsula Borough ports/harbors; Iliamna is
unincorporated and in the Lake and Peninsula Borough]. He
opined that in the case of an unincorporated community in an
unorganized borough, the question of a Tier 3 designation is
placed on the legislature as that borough's assembly.
2:05:47 PM
MR. ANDREASSEN displayed slide 9 and related AML's justification
for legislative approval related to HB 138. He stated that for
AML it starts in the constitution, and the members he has talked
with have said they would prefer that power. As shown by his
review of communities related to the current nominations, making
it a local decision would be challenging, he continued. This
body, he said, gives those communities/stakeholders an
opportunity to air the challenges, concerns, and questions they
have in front of policymakers responsible for making those
decisions. He pointed out that the majority of APDES [Alaska
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System] permits are issued
within an organized borough, which has the capability and
capacity, along with DEC as a regulator, in a way that might not
be had in the unorganized borough. An unorganized borough
doesn't have an assembly other than the legislature, he
reiterated, which gives the legislature a different obligation
than in an organized borough. There is extensive impact to
local governments across the state, he continued, but not all of
these are regulated by DEC. The legislature, he added, is in a
strong position to work with DEC to fully vet with public input
any proposal designating a water of national significance. He
said the naming of water of national significance speaks to him
as going beyond an agency decision, and is similar to the role
of the U.S. Congress in naming national parks and other
conservation units. He maintained that while the decision can
be made with best science and public input, it is a political
decision that is appropriate to be made by the legislature.
CO-CHAIR TARR pointed out that APDES is the Alaska Pollution
Discharge Elimination System and that the State of Alaska has
primacy under the [federal] Clean Water Act for that
responsibility, which is a whole part of this conversation in
terms of delegation of authority and who gets to do that.
MR. ANDREASSEN turned to slide 10 and continued to discuss AML's
justification for legislative approval related to HB 138. He
stated the legislature has created and named conservation units
in Alaska, including the designation of 120 park units and 13
marine parks. Given this, he said, it shouldn't be different
when it comes to waters of national significance. He noted he
was pleased to provide invited testimony during the bill's first
hearing and that public testimony was also taken then. When it
moves beyond hypotheticals to a designation, he continued, AML
will be at the table to talk about what it would look like for
each community.
2:08:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether a future legislature could
reverse a previous legislature's designation of a Tier 3.
MR. CRAPPS replied that that is not detailed in the Clean Water
Act. He related that the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) opinion is that there is no precedent for that, so the
possibility for a Tier 3 designation to be undesignated is
available and would be on a case-by-case basis.
2:09:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN recounted that this issue has been around
for a while and the AML has taken a stance on whether impacted
communities should have a formal stop in the process. As the
bill is currently written, she noted, it would be up to the
legislature, 60 people exclusively, to make that decision. She
asked whether AML believes communities should have any say in
the process as a formal check-off, involvement, engagement,
consultation, or should just be engaged in the political process
so a community that has power might have a say, but a small
isolated community that is unincorporated would have no say.
She further asked whether the communities have weighed in on
this element.
MR. ANDREASSEN responded AML has not tackled this specifically
but would be happy to weigh in on that at the appropriate point
in further consideration of HB 138. He said the committee
structure of the legislature is relevant, meaningful, and
produces a lot of that stakeholder engagement that makes things
accessible and hopefully produces outcomes consistent with the
public interest.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN recalled Mr. Andreassen stating that the
community of Yakutat had issued a resolution in opposition to
Yakutat Forelands. She inquired whether any of the other
communities have offered input into any of those other
nominations. For example, she noted, Klukwan has weighed in
with its support of a designation.
MR. ANDREASSEN offered his belief that others have weighed in,
but without having that before the committee it is hard for him
to poll AML's members for that feedback as it would be on a
case-by-case basis. He added he would appreciate a weighted
consideration when it comes to municipal government as he thinks
that would be valuable.
2:11:20 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR recounted that when the legislature passed the
enabling statutes after the citizen initiative legalizing
marijuana, the legislature gave a local option component. She
asked whether this same kind of model would be something that
AML could support or whether AML has another suggestion for how
giving weighted support to communities could be accomplished.
MR. ANDREASSEN answered that AML would definitely consider an
elegant solution like that for working with the legislature to
ensure local control and voice in designating a water of
national significance.
CO-CHAIR TARR pointed out that in the case of a designation by
statute, any statute can be repealed and so there would be a
process for that. She requested clarification from Mr. Crapps
regarding his statement that there isn't any precedent for
"undesignation."
2:13:38 PM
MR. CRAPPS replied he was just speaking to the Clean Water Act
and it doesn't specify that, so whatever is the process that
states arrive on is what the Tier 3 process will be.
2:14:02 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN clarified that the designation of a Tier 3 is a
federal designation and the federal government has asked states
to come up with a nomination and designation process. So, he
explained, if the [Alaska State Legislature] were to ask for a
designation through statute and then the legislature rolled back
the statute, it would not automatically compel the federal
government to roll back the designation. There is nothing right
now in federal law that prevents that, he continued, but there
is also nothing that specifies a procedure or explicitly
authorizes [the federal government] to do that. He pointed out
that situations with any ambiguity and multiple positions on the
topic are going to end up in court. So, he said, at this point
it is a foregone conclusion that if the state were to have a
designated Tier 3 and then tried to roll it back, it would have
to go to court and get settled there.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN noted that each committee member appreciates
the importance of HB 138 and its topic and that there is no
intention to rush this process this session. He said more will
be learned during the interim and HB 138 will be addressed in a
responsible way during the next legislative session.
[HB 138 was held over.]
2:15:35 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:15 p.m. to 2:31 p.m.
HB 116-AQUATIC FARM/HATCHERY SITE LEASES
2:31:48 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN announced that the final order of business
would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 116, "An Act
relating to the renewal or extension of site leases for aquatic
farming and aquatic plant and shellfish hatchery operations."
2:32:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDI STORY, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that SSHB 116 would simplify the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) lease renewal process for aquatic farms that
grow products such as oysters, kelp, and other shellfish. She
continued:
If enacted, HB 116 would help Alaska-based aquaculture
businesses succeed by shortening the lease renewal
process. Aquaculture is an industry with a lot of
promise and Alaska with more coastline than all the
other states combined has a bountiful potential. The
Alaska Mariculture Taskforce set a goal of making this
a $100 million industry in the next 20 years. As you
can see from the flowchart in your bill packet,
requirements to permit and operate an aquatic farm, or
related hatchery, is complex. The most rigorous and
time-consuming portion of the approval process is the
DNR aquatic farming site lease, both the original
lease and the subsequent renewal. Due to recent
increases in the number of aquaculture farm
applications - there was one application in 2016, 17
applications in 2017, and 16 in 2018 - coupled with
recent cuts to agency staff, it now takes an average
of 18 months or more to approve an aquatic farm lease.
By simplifying the renewal process, we can reduce risk
for businesses making significant capital investments
and reduce the workload on overstretched agency staff.
House Bill 116 aligns the lease renewal process for
aquatic farms to the process used for other DNR
leases. This would significantly shorten the first
renewal process while still allowing appropriate
regulatory oversight, public engagement, and appeals
of DNR's decisions. I would like to mention that this
bill would not affect leases for salmon hatcheries.
As a new legislator, I am pleased with how this bill
began and how it was developed. Shortly after taking
office I was contacted by a constituent who is
currently in the process of transferring an aquatic
farm lease, a process that would not be affected by
this bill. They shared their experiences with the
lease transfer process and suggested a few possible
changes that might help applicants. During subsequent
conversations DNR staff mentioned the streamlining of
the aquatic farm renewal process as a way to reduce
uncertainty for applicants and increase agency
efficiency.
2:35:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired whether hatchery includes salmon
hatchery.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK observed there was a title change from one
version to another version of the bill where it states shellfish
hatchery. He asked whether the only change was the title.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY responded yes, the title was specifically
changed because people were thinking the bill did include salmon
and she wanted to make it clear that [salmon hatchery leases]
wouldn't be affected.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK requested the committee be shown how the
process currently works.
2:36:41 PM
GREG SMITH, Staff, Representative Andi Story, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor explained that when
applying for a DNR lease to use public lands for a private
purpose, aquatic farm leases are under a separate section of
statute. Most leases given by DNR are under AS 38.05.070, he
said, which includes general leases for things like cabins,
lodges, fish processing plant docks, hydroelectric facilities,
grazing, and other uses where the state grants a private entity
rights to public land.
MR. SMITH brought attention to the aquatic farm application flow
chart in the committee packet and stated that the first
application for a lease goes through a large public notification
and comment process that can be found in AS 38.05.945. He
explained aquatic farms get up to a 10-year lease, and near the
end of that 10-year lease a renewal can be applied for but that
it currently involves a very lengthy public comment process.
However, he pointed out, general leases can be renewed by the
director under a shortened public comment process if the lease
is in good standing and is determined to be in the best interest
of the state.
MR. SMITH said the sponsor's understanding from DNR in terms of
the impacts on the applicant of the [proposed] change, is that
the applicant [for an aquatic farm lease renewal] would still
submit similar information to DNR. But the [proposed] benefit,
he continued, would be that under the AS 38.05.945 notice it
would take about 90 days for the shortened, optional lease
renewal process rather than taking 18 months for renewal.
2:40:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his understanding that the leases
[for aquatic farms] are good for 10 years. He inquired whether
there are any records for lease renewals that have been denied.
MR. SMITH answered that, according to DNR, the department has
never denied an aquatic farm lease renewal under the current
process.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked how many have been renewed.
MR. SMITH replied he doesn't know the total number of lease
renewals. He said an impetus for this bill is that the number
of lease applications has increased significantly in recent
years and those will be coming up for renewal 10 years after the
initial lease was started. So, he continued, probably only a
handful of lease renewals have been happening every year, but
the concern is that 10 years from now there will be 17-20 lease
renewals.
2:42:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS offered his understanding that there are
a fair number of aquatic farms in Southcentral and Southeast
Alaska. He inquired whether there is productivity or the
potential for development in other coastal areas of the state or
along lakes.
MR. SMITH responded he doesn't know and deferred to the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game to provide an answer.
GAROLD "FLIP" PRYOR, Fish and Game Coordinator, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), confirmed there is
potential in other areas, but that he cannot say specifically
where concentrations of interest are located.
2:43:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether there is a typical amount
of land involved or whether the amount varies. He further asked
whether the amount is a lot of land, and, if so, the reason why.
MR. SMITH answered that the amount varies significantly, with
some of the largest being over 150 acres and some with acreage
in the single digits. He deferred to DNR to provide specifics.
MARTY PARSONS, Director, Central Office, Division of Mining,
Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), confirmed
there is a wide variety from the single digits up to 200 acres.
He explained it depends upon what the individual is farming; for
example, spat for oysters is confined to a penned area that
doesn't take up much state tideland, whereas kelp needs hundreds
of acres to produce a large volume of the product.
2:45:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN recalled the statement that SSHB 116 does
not impact salmon or finfish hatcheries as opposed to shellfish
hatcheries. She inquired whether these two types of hatcheries
are linked together under the current statute such that they
both have the same lengthy renewal process as was described [for
aquatic farms], or whether finfish hatcheries fall under the
general leasing statute.
MR. SMITH replied that a variety of mechanisms are used for the
land that salmon hatcheries utilize. He offered his belief that
the nonprofit Douglas Island Pink and Chum, Inc. (DIPAC)
hatchery is an agreement between the City and Borough of Juneau
and DIPAC. He offered his further belief that others are
situated on private land ...
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN interjected that they all are on public
land [in this case]. She reiterated her question of whether
salmon hatcheries fall under the same current statute as
shellfish hatcheries for a lengthy renewal process, or fall
under the general leasing statute's shortened renewal process.
MR. SMITH offered his understanding that when salmon hatcheries
require a DNR lease and when that lease is renewed, it is
typically done under AS 38.05.070, the general lease statute.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN concluded that only shellfish hatcheries
have been held to this lengthy renewal process.
MR. SMITH responded only shellfish and other aquatic organisms
like kelp, but not salmon hatcheries.
2:47:39 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN opened invited testimony.
2:47:54 PM
JULIE DECKER, Executive Director, Alaska Fisheries Development
Foundation (AFDF), testified in support of SSHB 116. She said
AFDF has been spearheading an effort to develop the mariculture
industry in Alaska. She stated that through the governor's
Mariculture Taskforce a comprehensive statewide plan for
developing the industry has been completed, with a goal to grow
a $100 million industry in 20 years. She noted the industry
would be applicable in Southeast, Southcentral, Kodiak, and
Southwest Alaska, and that currently there are farms in Kodiak.
She offered her understanding that there has been at least one
farm application for near Sand Point. A positive result of the
Mariculture Taskforce's work has been increased private sector
interest in aquatic farming, she said. The recent interest has
increased applications to the state, she continued, which has
led to a backlog and increased the processing time from about 12
months to about 24 months as DNR works through the applications.
MS. DECKER noted that the initial application process is very
rigorous. She said DNR consults with multiple agencies and
considers user conflicts, biological concerns, habitat concerns,
marine mammal protection, navigation hazards, public comment
periods, and others. If an application makes it through this
process and is approved, she continued, the farm must, after 10
years, go through a renewal process that is at a higher standard
than other industries and other leases, which is what is being
talked about. She stated SSHB 116 would be a good step in the
direction to efficiently develop this industry because it would
reduce the workload at DNR; prioritize DNR's staff time on the
new farm lease applications, which would help grow the industry;
and give more certainty to farmers who have invested in
infrastructure during the first 10 years of the lease.
2:51:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER drew attention to the flow chart for the
existing process and asked whether the sponsor has one for what
the bill is addressing.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY replied that the main process being talked
about in this flow chart is within the box labeled "DNR *Aquatic
Farm Lease". She said a main point is that people put up a lot
of capital to start their farm and it takes three to seven years
to get to the spot of knowing whether the farm is going to be
viable. The renewal comes at 10 years, she continued, and
currently for this second step the farmer must go through the
whole rigorous process again. She said [SSHB 116] would make
the [first] renewal simpler and smoother for everyone, and then
at 20 years the farmer would have to go through the whole
original process again [for renewal]. She deferred to ADF&G to
elaborate further.
MR. PRYOR responded that the aforementioned is an accurate
description of what is going on with the flow chart.
2:53:04 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN restated Representative Rauscher's question as
to how the proposed change to the renewals would affect the flow
chart. Co-Chair Lincoln asked whether the steps in the proposed
changes are captured on the flow chart, or some steps would be
eliminated, or how it would vary under the proposed changes.
MR. PRYOR answered, "I believe you just take the last line of
the flow chart and where it says you get approval then you go to
the bottom line. After the 10 years you would just start over
at that bottom line again."
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked whether it is at the line labeled "DNR
Final Decision".
MR. PRYOR replied, "That's my understanding."
2:53:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired how the shorter process would
be enacted; for example, whether it would be enacted with an
application or whether it would be an understanding that it is
going to happen. He further inquired whether at 20 years it
would be by going through the whole thing again with an
application process.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY responded that for the 10 years the
applicant goes through the rigorous process, and then the farmer
would still have to fill out an application and practically do a
lot of the same steps. She said it's just that there would be a
shorter public review process involved, and that there would
still be regulatory oversight and opportunity for the public to
weigh in, and DNR would hear any appeal of it.
2:55:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN requested Mr. Pryor to describe the
difference in the current leasing process between a shellfish
hatchery and a finfish hatchery and how it would be different
under SSHB 116.
MR. PRYOR offered his understanding that [SSHB 116] would bring
this more on line with how the finfish leases work - when it
comes time to renew, rather than starting at Step A in the flow
chart the renewal would go through the commissioner, and the
commissioner would look at the renewal and make the decision
there without going through the top five or six steps.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised that currently finfish farms are
allowed to have the shortened renewal process and it is only
shellfish hatcheries and farms that have been unable to do this
for DNR renewals.
MR. PRYOR answered that that is his understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether shellfish farms are limited
to a 10-year lease by practice or by statute. She further asked
whether finfish hatcheries are limited to [a 10-year lease].
MR. PRYOR replied he is unsure how that works.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked what the average length of [time] is
for finfish hatchery leasing locations.
MR. PRYOR responded that he doesn't know.
2:57:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER read aloud from a letter he received,
which states in part: "Leave the word "Renewal" in as critical
for [relevant] considerations in AS 38.05.083 ... Please do not
remove the opportunity of [relevant] consideration upon renewal
of an oyster farm. We are just beginning to understand all the
repercussions this presents, as farming in our navigable waters
grows...." Representative Rauscher requested a response from
the sponsor because he would like to understand the concern and
how it equates to where the sponsor is at with the bill.
MR. SMITH, on behalf of the sponsor, offered his understanding
that in terms of the function of the bill, "or renew" must be
removed throughout AS 38.05.083 or it will always be triggering
the more extensive public comment period. He pointed out that
the shortened renewal process available for other types of DNR
leases with equal or significant potential impacts on public
lands is an optional choice for the director of the Division of
Mining, Land and Water. He said he understands from DNR that it
would be case dependent, such that if a leasee wasn't following
stipulations of the lease, or if there were significant problems
with neighbors and the public, and there was a lot of clamor
about a lease for any type of reason, the director doesn't have
to choose the [proposed] shortened lease renewal process and
could choose to use the process as outlined from the beginning
of the flow chart. He offered his further understanding that if
there are issues with a lease, upon renewal [the department]
could make changes to that lease.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether the bill states that
there is an option to choose [the longer lease renewal process]
if there is a problem.
MR. SMITH offered his understanding that that optional choice is
found in the bill on page 1, Section 1, line 5, which states,
"The director may renew a lease issued under this section". He
pointed out that the word "may" is used as opposed to "shall".
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether anyone else interprets
that to mean the same thing. Responding to Co-Chair Lincoln, he
requested Mr. Smith to restate this question.
MR. SMITH responded that the question is, "Where is it stated in
statute that this expedited lease renewal process is an optional
decision?" Responding further to Representative Rauscher, he
said it is stated in the bill on page 1, Section 1, line 5.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether the word "may" gives
[the director] that power.
3:01:20 PM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, said if
the question is, "What provides the director with the discretion
to decide to renew a lease?" Mr. Smith is correct that it is the
word "may" on page 1, line 5, of the bill.
3:03:04 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN drew attention to page 2, lines 7-9, which
state: "The commission, for good cause, may deny an application
for issuance [OR RENEWAL] of a lease under this section but
shall provide the applicant with written findings that explain
the reasons for the denial." Noting that "or renewal" would be
deleted under this section, he asked whether being able to deny
an application for "issuance" of a lease, but not for "renewal"
of a lease, has any relevance to the question right now.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER answered that he thinks the questioning
was whether input from the community was still in there. He
offered his belief that [Mr. Smith] was addressing that if there
seems to be a problem that [DNR] would revert back to the
process of asking the community. He inquired whether his
understanding is correct.
MR. SMITH replied that his understanding from DNR is that the
public can weigh in during the initial lease and also at
renewal.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN stated he would hold public testimony until the
bill's next hearing and noted that there is one more invited
testifier yet to be heard by the committee.
3:04:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his understanding that the initial
[aquatic farm application] process would remain the same, and
then there would be the renewal. He said his concern is page 2,
Section 3, lines 7-10, and asked whether it would still stand
that the commissioner could deny the renewal of a lease. He
pointed out that "or renew" would be deleted and further asked
whether the commissioner's ability to deny a lease for renewal
would be taken away.
3:05:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY replied, "We are taking out the renewal
here, but in the statute that we refer to earlier ... it still
can be denied in the renewal process that we would be switching
to, if they had any cause for that." She welcomed clarification
in this regard from ADF&G or anyone else online. She added,
There can always be a reason for denying the renewal, it would
just be it's expedited."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK requested that the person who answers the
aforementioned question also address whether the commissioner
can deny a person who is in the middle of a lease.
3:06:40 PM
MR. BULLARD responded that in this case it would be the director
and the director would have the latitude to deny a lease on
renewal under AS 38.05.070, which is where the renewal process
is moving from AS 38.05.083. He said if the director determines
that the lease is not in the best interests of the state the
director should not renew the lease. He stated he doesn't know
the answer to the second question of whether that can happen in
the middle of a lease term.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN requested Mr. Pryor to respond to the question
of whether a lease can be terminated mid-lease.
MR. PRYOR replied he is unable to answer the question off the
top of his head. Responding further to Co-Chair Lincoln, he
agreed to follow up and provide the committee with an answer to
the question.
3:08:28 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN reiterated that he would hold testimony from
the public and from the second invited testifier until the
bill's next hearing.
3:08:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO related that he has experience dealing
with these leases with municipal government as well as
privately. He offered his belief that under statute, violations
of the lease terms can result in forfeiture of all of the lease
provisions.
[SSHB 116 was held over.]
3:09:33 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:09 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB43 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/20/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| CSSB 43 (SFIN) - Sectional Summary.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43, Version A.PDF |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| CSSB 43, Version B.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Work Draft v. M - Explanation.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB43 Fiscal Note One - DCCED-CBPL 2.15.19.PDF |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB43 Fiscal Note Two - DCCED-CBPL 4.9.19.PDF |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Letters of Support.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Letters of Opposition.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 DCPL Letter .pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Bunch Testimony.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Additional Testimony Huttunen.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 BGCSB Letter of Support 4.03.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Big Game Commercial Services Board Sunset Review Audit.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB43 Supporting Document - RHAK Letter House Resources 4.25.19.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| HB138 Sponsor Statement version U 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 version A 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Fiscal Note 4.26.19.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 40 CFR Part 131 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 18 AAC 70.016 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Material DEC Tier 3 Water Designation FAQ 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Material DNR Fact Sheet Legislatively Designated Areas 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB138 Supporting Material DEC Tier 3 response 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Material Commissioner Hartig Letter to Senate 4.22.2019.PDF |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HR138 Supporting Document EPA Response to DEC 7.26.18.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HR 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - DEC P&P re Tier 3 Nomination 11.21.18.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - AML Presentation Tier 3 Designation Impact 05.03.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - DEC attachment sent to EPA 3.6.2018.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - Legal Opinion re HB 138 and Ballot Initiatives 5.1.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Supporting Documents - SEACC Letter and Reference Material 05.01.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Letters of Opposition 05.02.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Suppporting Document - Doyon Letter of Support 4.26.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB138 Coalition Letter of Support 4.28.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB138 Supporting Documents - Chilkat Indian Village 04.26.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB116 Sponsor Statement 4.15.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 ver U 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 DNR Fiscal Note 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 ver U Sectional Analysis 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 Explanation of Changes ver A to ver U 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 Aquatic Farm Application Review Flow Chart 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 - AFDF Letter of Support 2019-04-15.pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 ASGA Letter of Support 04.15.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 Supporting Document- Mariculture Plan.pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Letter of Opposition-Hillstrand.pdf |
HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - DEC State Tier 3 Review 5.3.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB138 Supporting Document - EPA to DEC Email 11.23.18.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - Legal Opinion re DEC Statutory Authority to Designate Tier 3 Waters 5.2.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Opposing Document - Letter in Opposition to House Resources Committee from SEACC - 5.1.19 (002).pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - Conitz Letter of Opposition 05.02.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |