03/15/2002 01:09 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 2002
1:09 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 462
"An Act relating to the release of certain confidential records
and reports concerning fishing, fish buying, or fish processing;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 44
Urging the President of the United States, the United States
Congress, and appropriate federal officials to support the
construction and operation of the Alaska Highway Natural Gas
Pipeline route.
- MOVED CSHJR 44(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 115
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Storage
Tank Assistance."
- MOVED SB 115 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 153(FIN)
"An Act replacing the storage tank assistance fund with the
underground storage tank revolving loan fund and relating to
that revolving loan fund; repealing the tank cleanup program and
the tank upgrading and closure program; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 153(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 503
"An Act relating to evaluating state assumption of the
wastewater discharge program under the federal Clean Water Act;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 503(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 376
"An Act relating to management of fish and game in and on the
navigable waters and submerged lands of Alaska."
- MOVED HB 376 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 232
"An Act permitting state residents to purchase remote
recreational cabin sites."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 3/18/02
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 462
SHORT TITLE:CONFIDENTIALITY OF FISHING RECORDS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STEVENS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2312 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2312 (H) FSH, RES
03/04/02 (H) FSH AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 124
03/04/02 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/04/02 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/06/02 2486 (H) FSH RPT 2DP 3NR
03/06/02 2486 (H) DP: SCALZI, STEVENS; NR:
COGHILL,
03/06/02 2486 (H) KAPSNER, KERTTULA
03/06/02 2486 (H) FN1: ZERO(DFG)
03/06/02 2486 (H) FN2: ZERO(DPS)
03/15/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 44
SHORT TITLE:ALASKA NATURAL GAS PIPELINE ROUTE
SPONSOR(S): OIL & GAS BY REQUEST OF NATURAL GAS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2307 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2307 (H) O&G, RES
03/05/02 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/05/02 (H) Moved CSHJR 44(O&G) Out of
Committee
03/05/02 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
03/06/02 2483 (H) FN1: ZERO(H.O&G)
03/06/02 2483 (H) O&G RPT CS(O&G) NT 5DP 1NR
03/06/02 2483 (H) DP: CHENAULT, FATE, GUESS,
JOULE, OGAN,
03/06/02 2483 (H) NR: KOHRING
03/13/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/13/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/15/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 115
SHORT TITLE:EXTEND BOARD OF STORAGE TANK ASSISTANCE
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF LEG BUDGET &
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/22/01 0474 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/22/01 0474 (S) RES, FIN
04/06/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
-- Meeting Canceled --
04/20/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/20/01 (S) Heard & Held
04/20/01 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/23/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/23/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
04/23/01 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/24/01 1234 (S) RES RPT 2DP 3NR
04/24/01 1234 (S) DP: TORGERSON, TAYLOR;
04/24/01 1234 (S) NR: HALFORD, LINCOLN, ELTON
04/24/01 1234 (S) FN1: (DEC)
04/26/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/26/01 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/26/01 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/26/01 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
01/31/02 (S) FIN AT 9:30 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
01/31/02 (S) Heard & Held
01/31/02 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
02/06/02 (S) FIN AT 9:30 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
02/06/02 (S) Moved Out of Committee
02/06/02 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
02/06/02 2121 (S) FIN RPT 8DP
02/06/02 2121 (S) DP: DONLEY, KELLY, AUSTERMAN,
HOFFMAN,
02/06/02 2121 (S) OLSON, WILKEN, LEMAN, WARD
02/06/02 2121 (S) FN2: (DEC)
02/11/02 (S) RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
02/11/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/11/02 2154 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1OR 2/11/02
02/11/02 2156 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/11/02 2156 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
02/11/02 2156 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 115
02/11/02 2156 (S) PASSED Y19 N- A1
02/11/02 2159 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/11/02 2159 (S) VERSION: SB 115
02/13/02 2219 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/13/02 2219 (H) RES, FIN
03/13/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/13/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/15/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 153
SHORT TITLE:UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK LOANS & PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/21/01 0753 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/21/01 0754 (S) RES, FIN
03/30/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/30/01 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/09/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/09/01 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/20/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/20/01 (S) Heard & Held
04/20/01 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/23/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/23/01 (S) Moved CS(RES) Out of
Committee
04/23/01 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/24/01 1236 (S) RES RPT CS 1DP 2DNP 2NR SAME
TITLE
04/24/01 1236 (S) DP: TORGERSON; DNP: TAYLOR,
HALFORD;
04/24/01 1236 (S) NR: LINCOLN, ELTON
04/24/01 1236 (S) FN1: ZERO(DEC)
04/26/01 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/26/01 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
01/31/02 (S) FIN AT 9:30 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
01/31/02 (S) Heard & Held
01/31/02 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
02/06/02 (S) FIN AT 9:30 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
02/06/02 (S) Moved Out of Committee
02/06/02 2122 (S) FIN RPT CS 8DP SAME TITLE
02/06/02 2122 (S) DP: DONLEY, KELLY, AUSTERMAN,
HOFFMAN,
02/06/02 2122 (S) OLSON, WILKEN, LEMAN, WARD
02/06/02 2122 (S) FN2: ZERO(DEC)
02/11/02 (S) RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
02/11/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/11/02 2155 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1OR 2/11/02
02/11/02 2157 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/11/02 2157 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
02/11/02 2157 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
02/11/02 2157 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
153(FIN)
02/11/02 2157 (S) PASSED Y18 N2
02/11/02 2158 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
02/11/02 2160 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/11/02 2160 (S) VERSION: CSSB 153(FIN)
02/13/02 2220 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/13/02 2220 (H) RES, FIN
03/13/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/13/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/15/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 503
SHORT TITLE:WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/06/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/06/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/06/02 2487 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/06/02 2487 (H) RES, FIN
03/15/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 376
SHORT TITLE:FISH & GAME IN NAVIGABLE WATERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)OGAN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/01/02 2121 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/01/02 2121 (H) RES, JUD
03/01/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/01/02 (H) Heard & Held
03/04/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/04/02 (H) Failed To Move Out Of
Committee
03/15/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed concerns and questions relating
to HB 462.
AL CAIN, Captain
Division of Fish & Wildlife Protection
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 462, which would
enable DPS to obtain records and investigate matters more
quickly than through the current search-warrant process.
SUE ASPELUND, Executive Director
Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU)
P.O. Box 939
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 462; indicated
there are legitimate needs for reported information and said
CDFU supports access by affected parties and their designees to
their own reported information.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 44 on behalf of the House
Special Committee on Oil and Gas, sponsor by request.
HEATHER BRAKES, Staff
to Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 121
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 115 on behalf of the Senate
Rules Committee, which had sponsored the bill at the request of
the Joint Committee on Legislative Budget and Audit.
JOHN BARNETT, Executive Director
Board of Storage Tank Assistance
P.O. Box 240651
Douglas, Alaska 99824
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 115 and SB 153.
ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff
to Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 516
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 153 on behalf of Senator
Leman, sponsor.
TOM CHAPPLE, Director
Division of Air and Water Quality
Department of Environmental Conservation
555 Cordova Street.
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 503.
ZACH WARWICK, Staff
to Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 121
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 503, discussed SB 326,
the companion bill, and suggested conceptual Amendment 1.
CHARLOTTE MACCAY, Vice President
Council of Alaska Producers
3601 Lakeshore Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 503 and
suggested there is a significant potential benefit from having
the program administered by people familiar with Alaska's unique
conditions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-16, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR DREW SCALZI called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:09 p.m. Representatives Scalzi,
Masek, Kerttula, Kapsner, Stevens, Fate, and McGuire were
present at the call to order. Representatives Green and
Chenault arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 462-CONFIDENTIALITY OF FISHING RECORDS
CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced the first order of business, HOUSE
BILL NO. 462, "An Act relating to the release of certain
confidential records and reports concerning fishing, fish
buying, or fish processing; and providing for an effective
date."
[There was a motion to adopt HB 462 as the working document, but
it was already before the committee.]
Number 0120
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS, speaking as sponsor of HB 462, explained
that the bill "cleans up" several problems; it also provides
several changes in regard to releasing certain types of
information held as confidential by the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC). That is information that has been received
by the fishermen, fish buyers, and fish processors. The bill
clarifies that upon request, reports of certain information that
has been submitted by fishermen, fish buyers, or processors can
be provided back to the person who submitted it or who has been
identified as a designee. The bill also provides for the
release of certain information to the Department of Public
Safety (DPS), to law enforcement personnel of the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to help with the enforcement
of fisheries laws.
Number 0333
GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, told the committee there had
been some questions in regard to language in the bill. He
turned attention to page 2, line 19, paragraph (6), which refers
to the release of fishing activity to the person who submitted
the information. The new language adds "or to a designee of the
person whose fishing activity is the subject of the report". He
explained that there had been some instances with the Small
Business Administration (SBA) in the "fishing disaster" area, or
other loan programs for which a fisherman's fishing information
has been requested as part of the application process.
Currently, that information can be released back to the
fisherman; however, if that fisherman's desire is to release the
information to the SBA or another party, it takes longer to get
it back to them if it's the middle of the fishing season, for
example. Therefore, this is permissive. It would take a
notarized form filled out by the person that would authorize the
department to release [the information] for a specific purpose.
Information would not be released without permission.
MR. WILLIAMS referred to [page 2] paragraph (7), a new addition
that refers to annual statistical reports of a buyer or
processor. He said the report is known by ADF&G as a "COAR
report" or the Commercial Operators Annual Report. Some
situations have come up wherein the processor or buyer who
submitted the report technically doesn't have the ability to get
the report back. For example, if the [submitter] needs an
official copy that had been submitted to ADF&G, there is no
authority for ADF&G to return it. He said it is also a problem
if the [submitter] chooses to send the report to a designee. He
said this has come up in recent instances: he mentioned some
entitlement programs for processors as an example. He said [HB
462] would enable the [submitter] to get his/her own report back
or have it sent on [to a designee] by request.
MR. WILLIAMS turned attention to [page 2] paragraph (8) and said
changes were made for DPS, adding a saltwater charter logbook
statewide. He explained that the charter fishing fleet is
required to fill out logbooks of catch information; that has
been instituted statewide over the last six or seven years.
Currently, DPS doesn't have access to [logbooks] without
obtaining a court order. However, DPS does have access to fish
tickets and fish ticket information, which refers to the
commercial fleet. He mentioned that DPS thought it was
important information that it would like to have to enforce
laws. He reiterated that [HB 462] would add annual statistical
reports of buyers and processors and also would give DPS access
to the COAR report if it was needed in an investigation.
MR. WILLIAMS referred to [page 2] paragraph (9) and said it adds
the same language about [releasing information contained in the]
annual statistical reports of buyers and processors to NOAA.
Last spring [NOAA] went forward with regulations on the federal
level requiring the offshore "mother ship" in a catcher-
processor fleet that fishes beyond three miles off [the coast
of] Alaska to file a COAR report with ADF&G in order to get more
holistic information about what's being caught and to help with
management. In the process of going forward with those
regulations, [NOAA] noted that it didn't have enforcement
capability.
Number 0692
MR. WILLIAMS turned attention to paragraph (1) and said any of
the records or reports that ADF&G or [CFEC] has are available to
management personnel of [NOAA] for drawing up its fishery
management plans. However, there was not a reference to the
enforcement, and "they" feel that in order to ensure good
information, they should have access to that.
Number 0753
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if [HB 462] would create additional
work.
MR. WILLIAMS said it doesn't create any great amount of work for
[ADF&G].
Number 0807
AL CAIN, Captain, Division of Fish & Wildlife Protection,
Department of Public Safety, told the committee DPS is most
interested in paragraph (8). This would provide [DPS] access to
saltwater charter logbook information and the annual statistical
reports for processors in a manner similar to that now used for
fish tickets. He said DPS doesn't have any standing requests
that the aforementioned documents be sent to them; consequently,
DPS basically requests [the documents] on a case-by-case basis
only when there is a demonstrated need. For example, some of
DPS's cases involve processors. A few years back, a processor
on the Yukon River was involved in quite a network of violations
involving king salmon, and having access to the statistical
reports would have aided [DPS] in that investigation. He
concluded by saying the saltwater charter logbooks contain
detailed catch information that assists [DPS] to identify and
investigate violations which happen in that arena, in the same
way that fish tickets help [DPS] when it has commercial fishing
or reporting violations.
Number 0928
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked Mr. Cain if [obtaining] certain
confidential records is a serious problem.
MR. CAIN answered that he wouldn't quantify it as a serious
problem. He said currently when [DPS] needs to obtain charter
logbook information, the annual statistical information on
processors, it approaches the court for a search warrant, files
an affidavit, relays the investigative information to a judge or
magistrate, obtains a warrant, serves the warrant at ADF&G's
office, obtains the records, and then makes a return to the
court of that warrant. He said this process is fairly time-
consuming for [DPS]. The information contained in the two
additional sources is almost identical to the information that
[DPS] was previously provided in fish tickets.
MR. CAIN said it has been of great assistance to [DPS] through
the years when there is a reported violation or incorrect
reporting - for example, a fishing vessel is observed fishing in
one area but the report on the fish ticket indicates the vessel
took the fish in another area, to circumvent a quota or a cap;
consequently, [DPS] is able to obtain those records quickly and
investigate the matter quickly. Presently, by contrast, for log
books and statistical information on processors, [DPS] has to go
through the search-warrant process. He said, "So, this bill
simply seeks to add to the list, to the fish tickets, this other
very similar statistical information that [ADF&G] collects."
Number 1084
SUE ASPELUND, Executive Director, Cordova District Fishermen
United (CDFU), testified via teleconference, informing the
committee that she also represents the fishing families of
Prince William Sound and the Copper River. She said HB 462 is
good legislation. She expressed a need for this legislation and
offered the following example: In Cordova, fishermen needed
access to their fishing records in order to document their
claims against Exxon following the [oil] spill [from the Exxon
Valdez] in Prince William Sound. She said Glacier Bay is
another good example where fishermen need access to their
landing information.
MS. ASPELUND said [CDFU] believes there are legitimate needs for
the information, and supports access by affected parties and
their designees to their own reported information. In addition,
[CDFU] believes it is completely appropriate to add saltwater
charter logs and processor reports to those currently covered in
statute. Adequate reporting, and the ability to assure that, is
an important and necessary function in resource management, she
concluded.
Number 1217
CO-CHAIR SCALZI closed public comment. He indicated HB 462
would be held over at the request of the sponsor.
[Co-Chair Scalzi turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Masek.]
CO-CHAIR MASEK called an at-ease from 1:25 p.m. to 1:28 p.m.
HJR 44-ALASKA NATURAL GAS PIPELINE ROUTE
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 44, Urging the President of the
United States, the United States Congress, and appropriate
federal officials to support the construction and operation of
the Alaska Highway Natural Gas Pipeline route. [Before the
committee was CSHJR 44(O&G)].
Number 1269
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN, Alaska State Legislature, presented
the sponsor statement for HJR 44 on behalf of the House Special
Committee on Oil and Gas, which he chairs. He told the
committee he thought the issue was extremely timely and
encouraged moving the bill forward. He mentioned that the
[U.S.] Senate was simultaneously debating energy legislation.
He remarked, "We are hoping to have this in hand for our
congressional delegation to clearly articulate a position of the
State of Alaska on natural gas development and the pipeline
routes."
Number 1335
[There was a motion to adopt CSHJR 44(O&G), but it was already
before the committee.]
CO-CHAIR MASEK called an at-ease from 1:29 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN mentioned that he wanted to offer some
technical amendments.
Number 1385
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he thinks the resolution is a great
idea, but he expressed concern about the length of the six-page
resolution and the fact that it contains a lot of language about
the route [of the proposed gas pipeline, which had already been
set out at the congressional level]. He suggested offering a
"rendered down" version to avoid creating any "friction."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN mentioned the difficulty of working on a
resolution while legislation on the federal level is [changing].
He suggested keeping some references to the northern route. He
said there will be a conference committee on the [U.S.] energy
bill. Representative Ogan suggested that certain [oil company]
producers might not be happy with the mandated southern route
and may try to lobby some changes in conference committee [in
Congress]. He agreed that the resolution was long.
Number 1587
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN, in response to Co-Chair Masek, explained
that the [resolution] had come out of [the Joint Committee on
Natural Gas Pipelines]; he said the committee chairman had
"pretty much introduced it and we did go over it as a joint
committee." Representative Ogan mentioned that the bill had
been "tweaked" in the House Special Committee on Oil and Gas.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that the [resolution] was in the
House Special Committee on Oil and Gas well before the [U.S.]
Senate had started hearing the issue. He expressed concern
about timing.
Number 1665
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN turned attention to page 3, line 2, and
offered Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, line 2 delete (S. 1766)
replace with the "Energy Policy
Act of 2002",
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained that [the resolution] talks about
[U.S.] S. 1766, but that isn't the bill currently before
[Congress]. He added: "We just thought we should call it the
Energy Policy Act of 2002, because that's what it's being
referred to in [the] title. So, just a technical amendment so
it doesn't confuse people about what bill it is. Again, this
thing [the Congressional legislation] morphs faster than we can
keep up with it, and it will probably morph again before it's
over."
Number 1726
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt the foregoing as Amendment
1. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1740
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN offered Amendment 2, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 3 line 10 delete (and which right is not in S.
1766)
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to page 3, lines 7-10, which read:
WHEREAS ANGTA granted the State of Alaska
"authoriz[ation] to ship its royalty gas on the
approved transportation system for use within Alaska
and ... to withdraw such gas from the interstate
market for use within Alaska," which rights will be
impaired if a northern route is followed and which
right is not in S. 1766; and
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained that the language ["and which
right is not in S. 1766"] would be removed [by Amendment 2] to
conform because the northern-route issue had been settled and
because it referred to the wrong bill.
Number 1783
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt the foregoing as Amendment
2. There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that public testimony was closed.
Number 1852
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested a reduction of several of the
"whereas" [clauses]. However, he mentioned the time constraint
regarding the resolution and said maybe he would talk with
[Representative Ogan] before the resolution goes to the [House]
floor.
Number 1903
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he would be happy to work with
Representative Green on some possible floor amendments. He
again mentioned the [U.S. energy bill] in Congress and time
constraints.
Number 1929
REPRESENTATIVE FATE agreed that time is of the essence. He
offered his view that people in Washington, D.C., and the oil
companies are looking for an "expression" that leads to an
accelerated interest by "this" legislative body. He indicated
other things in [the resolution] besides the northern route are
extremely important so that Congress knows the interest at stake
for Alaska. He concurred with moving the resolution from
committee and instead having amendments on the floor.
Number 1967
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE suggested Representative Kott, who chairs
the House Rules Standing Committee, would be willing to hold a
meeting there to clean up the language.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN reiterated his concern about time
constraints.
Number 2013
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS offered his view that all of the
[clauses] of the resolution were important. He suggested
sending it along as it is.
Number 2034
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report CSHJR 44 [CSHJR 44(O&G), as
amended] out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection,
CSHJR 44(RES) was moved out of the House Resources Standing
Committee.
SB 115-EXTEND BOARD OF STORAGE TANK ASSISTANCE
[Contains discussion of SB 153]
Number 2076
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 115, "An Act extending the termination date
of the Board of Storage Tank Assistance."
Number 2100
HEATHER BRAKES, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SB 115 on behalf of the Senate Rules
Committee, which had sponsored the bill at the request of the
Joint Committee on Legislative Budget and Audit. She explained
that [SB 115] would extend the [Board of Storage Tank Assistance
(BSTA)] for an additional two years, from June 30, 2001, to June
30, 2003. The board is currently in its wind-down year and will
cease to exist on June 30, 2002, if the legislature chooses not
to extend it this year.
MS. BRAKES referred to a legislative audit released on December
6, 2000, by the [Joint Committee on Legislative Budget and
Audit], performed under legislative oversight statutes. She
directed attention to page 11 of the audit report and noted that
the legislative auditor lays out the following audit report
conclusions: The board should be reestablished, and it plays an
integral role in promoting compliance throughout the state with
federal regulations related to specifications for underground
storage tanks (UST). Compliance is important in promoting
public health in that it protects underground drinking water
supplies from pollution and provides funding necessary to
remediate pollution brought on by leaking USTs owned and
operated by private-sector interests. As an independent board,
BSTA has been instrumental in mediating disputes between the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and tank owners
and operators. The board has enhanced cooperation, which
promotes compliance with governmental regulations related to the
underground tanks. Ms. Brakes said there were no findings or
recommendations made on the audit. However, the auditor did
recommend that BSTA be extended to June 2003.
Number 2239
JOHN BARNETT, Executive Director, Board of Storage Tank
Assistance, told the committee he was a private-sector
contractor contracted to BSTA.
Number 2248
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Barnett whether this is "proper
form" when it is past the termination date to extend the date,
or whether it has to be "reinstituted."
MR. BARNETT answered that BSTA is "sunsetted" but is still in
existence and doesn't terminate until June [2002]. On the
books, it shows a sunset date of June 30 [2002], so the sunset
date has to be reestablished for 2003, which [SB 115] would do.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he thought [the sunset date] was June
2001, and that the [sunset] had already happened.
MR. BARNETT said [June 2001] was the original sunset date.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if [the original sunset date] was
extended to 2002.
MR. BARNETT said there is one year wind-down period after the
sunset date, and [BSTA] is in that wind-down period, as opposed
to its being a termination date.
Number 2318
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked the reason for the extension. She
also asked Mr. Barnett if [BSTA] had planned on remaining after
[the proposed extension] and whether the [extension] was too
short or was the right amount of time.
MR. BARNETT told Representative Kerttula [SB 115] was "somewhat
tied" to SB 153, which terminates the grant program on June 30,
2004. So, with a sunset date of 2003 for BSTA and the wind-down
year, [BSTA] would essentially terminate on [June 30, 2004]. He
said a loan program would continue, and the need for BSTA would
have to be evaluated later; at this time, however, BSTA and the
Alaskan underground tank owners and operators are satisfied with
this [date].
Number 2372
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked whether the entire annual operating
budget of $51,000 included travel and administrative costs.
MR. BARNETT answered that BSTA was privatized in 1999 through SB
128, and the only costs associated with BSTA are for travel of
the board members and for the sole employee, himself. The
actual tank program costs are for the loan program and the grant
program, and administration of that is under the operating
budget through DEC.
CO-CHAIR MASEK closed public testimony.
Number 2427
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report SB 115 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, SB 115 was moved out of the House
Resources Standing Committee.
SB 153-UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK LOANS & PROGRAM
[Contains discussion of SB 115]
Number 2460
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 153(FIN), "An Act replacing the
storage tank assistance fund with the underground storage tank
revolving loan fund and relating to that revolving loan fund;
repealing the tank cleanup program and the tank upgrading and
closure program; and providing for an effective date."
Number 2470
ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff to Senator Loren Leman, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SB 153 on behalf of Senator Leman,
sponsor. She referred to the fiscal note on SB 115 and
explained that in SB 153 there is a provision "that in the
revolving loan fund will come the cost for the board." The
programs are tied together, and as long as the underground
storage tank (UST) program continues, the legislature will
continue to decide if it wants to extend the board. She said,
"Your conference committee will have to ratify the fiscal note
with [SB] 115 with the operating budget for DEC [Department of
Environmental Conservation], so that's what's going to happen
with that $51,000 fiscal note."
MS. KREITZER mentioned a sectional analysis provided to
committee members. Since 1990, she said, the state has assisted
small businesses to conduct risk assessment; build containment
structures; upgrade, close, or install new USTs; and help clean
up contamination. She said these efforts have protected water
and lands from oil pollution. Furthermore, over $38.9 million
has been appropriated since 1991 for this program, which is why
there have been so many efforts to streamline the program and
get a "handle" on the cost.
MS. KREITZER told members, "One of the questions that we get
[is]: how are applicants affected by the spill - people who
have been waiting for state money to upgrade and close or clean
up their underground storage tank site?" She said all
applications for grant assistance for any of the programs under
[AS] 46.03 had to have already been in; [the program] is not
shutting people out, but dealing with existing lists. She said
the current Senate Resources Committee chairman had sponsored SB
128.
MS. KREITZER offered the following example of how the costs have
been [reduced]: one of the programs was the upgrade and closure
grant program, which is phased out completely by SB 153. Ms.
Kreitzer said the reason is because prior to SB 128 in 1999, the
total of applications for upgrade-and-closure grants was $3
million; after that legislation, the amount dropped to about $1
million, which is what was estimated to happen. In all
actuality, the cost of the upgrade-and-closure grant
applications, with all of the financial limitations on the
program, dropped closer to about $35,000. She said the
legislature had made [significant] progress in streamlining the
program.
Number 2661
JOHN BARNETT, Executive Director, Board of Storage Tank
Assistance (BSTA), told the committee he was a private-sector
contractor employed by BSTA. He said BSTA supports SB 153, an
excellent piece of legislation. It cleans up the statutes by
removing the upgrade-and-closure program in its entirety, and it
sets a determination date for the grant program of June 30,
2004, which also coincides with the board's sunset. Currently,
there are about 40 active grants, and it is estimated most of
those will be wrapped up by that time. This bill provides an
effective tool for "prodding" some of the applicants to get
their paperwork done in a timely manner, which is helpful to
BSTA. Furthermore, SB 153 converts the existing loan program to
a revolving loan program. He said the hope is that it will help
make the loan program self-sustaining for future remediation
costs for long-term monitoring, and so forth, which will extend
beyond 2004.
MR. BARNETT noted that the bill limits who can get loans from
the program. Currently, any company, individual, or business
that originally applied for financial assistance in the "window
of application" between 1990 and 1994 can get a loan. In 1999,
SB 128 set some thresholds about who could get grants and who
could get loans. Consequently, grants were limited to small
businesses, but loans were still available to everyone,
regardless of the size of the corporation. He said SB 153 is
important because it sets a limit; the large corporations could
not get loans from the state, and given the current low interest
rates, certain corporations could conceivably make money off of
the program if they were allowed to obtain loans. There are 57
applicants or entities that have expressed interest in applying
for a loan, he noted, and 14 of those are large corporations
that [SB 153] would eliminate.
Number 2794
MR. BARNETT said [AS 46.03.422] limits applicants for loans to
those that don't meet the federal self-insurability test, and it
references] the federal C.F.R. [Code of Federal Regulations].
He reiterated that [SB 153] keeps the money in the smaller and
medium-sized businesses for loans, retains the grant program,
and gives [BSTA] time to "wrap up" the grants for the small
"mom, and pops" and small, individual businesses. He concluded,
"So it's a good bill. It's something that Senator Leman's
office should be proud of. And both the Alaska Underground Tank
Owners and Operators Association as well as the Board of Storage
Tank Assistance urge passage of this bill."
Number 2827
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Barnett what the federal limit
for self-insurability is.
MR. BARNETT said it is a net worth of $10 million. On the loan
list, it would eliminate a good percentage of the applicants and
still leave the moderate-sized companies in there. Also, they
do pay registration fees into the program.
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that public testimony was closed.
Number 2985
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report CSSB 153(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSB 153(FIN) was
moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
HB 503-WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PROGRAM
[Contains discussion of HB 361 and SB 326]
Number 2920
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the next order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 503, "An Act relating to evaluating state assumption of the
wastewater discharge program under the federal Clean Water Act;
and providing for an effective date." [The bill was sponsored
by the House Resources Standing Committee.]
TAPE 02-16, SIDE B
Number 2969
TOM CHAPPLE, Director, Division of Air and Water Quality,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), testified before
the committee. He mentioned the sponsor statement for a Senate
companion bill [SB 326] [sponsored in part by] Senator Gene
Therriault. He said [HB 503] is an "outgrowth" of a workgroup
that DEC created a couple years ago in looking at redesigning
and rebuilding its wastewater discharge permitting.
MR. CHAPPLE said the workgroup [members] thought that eventually
the possibility of achieving delegation from the EPA
[Environmental Protection Agency] for primary authority on
discharge permits in Alaska may be something desirable for the
state. However, the workgroup was guarded about that because
it's a complex question and there are many "pros and cons" as to
whether that would be good for Alaska. He said this bill would
essentially ask DEC, through an effort with the stakeholders in
the workgroup and other Alaskans, to craft out what an NPDES
[National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System] discharge
program would look like, and bring that before the legislature
for a future decision. He said [the workgroup] would look at
statutory changes, regulatory changes, necessary permitting
procedures, and funding sources, and "put it all on the table"
so that an informed decision could be made.
MR. CHAPPLE mentioned that Idaho is in a similar situation but
approximately one year ahead of [Alaska in development]. He
said the constituents in Idaho are grappling with the same
dilemma, not really knowing whether it would be better. Mr.
Chapple said the equivalent of DEC in Idaho had gone through the
same effort with the stakeholder group to look at all of the
changes that were necessary so that a decision could be made.
Number 2863
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned that [HB 503 and SB 326] appeared
to be identical on the first page; however, the second page of
the Senate version deviates from the House version. He asked
Mr. Chapple [which version would be more suitable]. He
expressed concern that [if the House version were sent over to
the Senate], it would probably be returned with changes.
MR. CHAPPLE expressed his belief that changes were being made in
the Senate. He said that through speaking with Senator
Therriault's aide, he thought a committee substitute (CS) would
be introduced. Mr. Chapple said he couldn't speak specifically
to what the changes would be, however.
Number 2807
ZACH WARWICK, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Alaska State
Legislature, began discussion of what would become conceptual
Amendment 1. He told the committee that a "blank" CS was going
to be introduced to the Senate Resources Standing Committee [for
SB 326]. He explained that there was an error made in the blank
CS [for SB 326], which [HB 503] was based on. He said there are
some other problems with the bill that are being addressed.
MR. WARWICK indicated [the intention, with both HB 503 and SB
326, is that page 2, subsection (b), should read]: "Second
Regular Session of the Twenty-Third Alaska State Legislature."
CO-CHAIR MASEK referred to [HB 503] page 2, lines 11-12. She
asked Mr. Warwick if he was suggesting the aforementioned
changes as a conceptual amendment.
MR. WARWICK responded in the affirmative.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked the committee members if they understood
the proposed changes.
[Although there was no formal motion, conceptual Amendment 1 was
treated as adopted.]
Number 2720
REPRESENTATIVE FATE referred to a support document and said the
action plan was in operation to secure federal funding. He
asked how the program would be funded.
MR. CHAPPLE said the project would look at what sources of
federal funds might be acquired in Alaska to implement the
program. He said it is not a foregone conclusion that federal
funds could be acquired, but "we" certainly would look at what
federal funds might be brought to bear and how else the program
would be funded.
MR. CHAPPLE mentioned HB 361, which he said was a policy
direction in how wastewater discharge permits and solid-waste
discharge permits would be funded through a combination of
program receipts, user fees, and state general funds. He said
HB 361 and its policy direction would be "brought into this
work" and that other federal funding sources would be looked at
to bring forward a funding mix to make the program workable.
Number 2658
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the state has primacy on disposal
"down-well annuli" from the EPA. He asked: If primacy were
[given] and federal funding were not [received], would "we" be
gaining enough to offset the general funding used to pay for
[the project]? He offered his belief that the process is
[designed] to get a quicker turnaround, so that "we" don't have
to go through the EPA NPDES permitting and "can do it" by the
state. He mentioned concerns about still having "strings
attached" by the federal government. He asked if [HB 503] would
be a similar program and whether there would still be
requirements or "strings" from EPA on NPDES; also, would there
be a quicker turnaround that would allow programs to move more
smoothly?
MR. CHAPPLE said, "Correct." He said EPA would still have an
oversight role similar to other programs that DEC implements
wherein the federal law - in this case, the Clean Water Act
(CWA) - has a strong impetus for states to implement those laws,
yet the EPA has an oversight role. Mr. Chapple described
another program he had implemented, the air quality program with
air permits, the authority for which he said is fully delegated
to the state. He said [Alaska] makes the decisions, and those
decisions made in Alaska give [the state] more opportunities to
understand the businesses and the environmental situation. He
offered his belief that it is usually a better opportunity to
understand what will work best. He said the EPA has an
oversight rule, and if it believes the state isn't implementing
[the rule] according to the Clean Water Act, then it can take
independent enforcement actions or withdraw the delegation. He
added that this situation would be similar.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern that in regard to air
quality, the applicants pay a significant amount of money for
the permits. He said he assumes that the [money from the
permits] would essentially pay for the costs [of the program].
However, if the [wastewater discharge program] didn't get
federal funding, it would be a general-fund expenditure, as
opposed to [having applicant fees pay for the costs of the
program]. He pointed out that Mr. Chapple had said he was
looking for ways to find federal funding. Representative Green
asked Mr. Chapple, if [federal funding is not available],
whether the state is going to be subject to "a quarter of a
million dollars a year" to allow applicants to come to the state
for their NPDES.
Number 2508
MR. CHAPPLE said the funding in the fiscal note is only to do
the implementation plan: that money is to "lay out" the
program, to decide whether the state should seek primacy. Mr.
Chapple said the Clean Air Act requires that for operating
permits in Alaska, the permittees pay 100 percent of the cost,
which is in the Clean Air Act. However, a similar requirement
is not in the Clean Water Act.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern that in the [Clean Air
Act] it is "spelled out" and that [permittees] pay for [the
program], but in the [Clean Water Act] it is undetermined
whether [federal funding would be available] or if the state
would have to pay for [the program]. He asked Mr. Chapple: If
the program went forward and federal funding wasn't available,
what would it cost the state in "years three, four, five, and
six?"
MR. CHAPPLE answered that he didn't have an understanding of
what the program would ultimately cost; additionally, that would
be a major piece of what "this" work would provide, including
what other funding sources exist such as federal funds to help
run the program. He said he didn't have those answers and that
it would take a fair amount of work to figure out.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that [the legislature] is in a
"reduction-of-expenditure mode, and here we're spending money to
see whether we want to spend more money."
MR. CHAPPLE said the policy request [in HB 503] is to really
examine the option, and there is no commitment to doing the
program. Furthermore, the cost of the program would be a very
significant contributor to what decision is ultimately made if
the implementation is moved forward.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the [cost] would be recouped if
the program went forward. He suggested that applicants who are
going to benefit from "more expeditious handling" should be
involved, rather than just the state.
MR. CHAPPLE indicated there may be people on teleconference who
could answer those questions better.
Number 2367
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted a conflict because her husband
works for [DEC] and does some NPDES permitting in Mr. Chapple's
section. She then asked Mr. Chapple if the "companies" were
going to donate toward the [fiscal cost] or donate separately
toward the study effort.
MR. CHAPPLE said the proposal would envision the companies'
being part of the discussion and the evaluation; however, it
doesn't anticipate a direct financial commitment at this point.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if that was just for sending
people to the meetings and cooperating. In regard to current
cruise [ship] efforts, she offered her belief that companies pay
for part of the research. She asked if there had been any
thought about the companies' helping with the study money.
MR. CHAPPLE said he had not discussed that directly with the
companies.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked about the cost of Idaho's NPDES
program or that of a similar state.
MR. CHAPPLE said he didn't know the figures regarding Idaho's
program, but said he could acquire that information.
MR. WARWICK offered that Maine's [program] received federal
grants through "Section 106" of the Clean Water Act, which
covers approximately 30 percent of the "source" and totals under
$1.5 million.
Number 2235
CHARLOTTE MACCAY, Vice President, Council of Alaska Producers
("Council"), testified via teleconference. Ms. MacCay noted
that the Council represents the hard-rock mining industry in the
state. She read from the following letter given to Senator
Therriault when the Council asked him to sponsor [SB 326]:
The Council of Alaska Producers has a strong interest
in the State of Alaska assuming the NPDES permit
program. We believe there is significant potential to
benefit from having the program administered by people
familiar with the unique conditions of Alaska, as well
as the potential for expediting the permitting process
through more accessible permitting staff.
Resource development in Alaska may become more
economic and attractive to mining and other
industries, and the protection of the state waters may
be improved as locally knowledgeable persons make
water use determinations. However, we also have some
reservations. We are concerned whether or not the
State will have permitting flexibility equal to that
provided through the State permit certification
process.
We are also concerned whether the state can best
resolve water-permitting conflicts with the EPA, if
and when they should arise, as program administrator
or if they have greater power as a separate entity.
It is our hope that with further evaluation of the
NPDES assumption, and with an implementation plan that
would provide us with a preview of the state NPDES
program, that it will be evident that state assumption
of the program will benefit Alaska citizens and
Alaskan waters. State assumption of the NPDES program
will be costly. It would be unwise to request the
appropriation of funds for this program without first
providing an implementation plan and an evaluation of
the consequences. The legislation proposed in the
attached document requests the funds and authority to
take this first step.
MS. MACCAY stated that the [Council] shares many of the concerns
raised by Representative Green, which is why [the Council] had
asked that the bill be introduced. This issue is a recurring
issue; it's continually brought up whether the state should be
taking over the program. However, she said, it is such a costly
program that it is really unwise not to research it first. Ms.
MacCay requested that the bill be passed so that it can be
researched and addressed with an intelligent answer.
Number 2088
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA indicated there isn't going to be money
in the budget for the study. She asked whether the Council or
[others in the industry] might benefit by having Alaska have
primacy might be willing to be part of the effort to pay for it.
MS. MACCAY indicated that paying for primacy had not been
discussed by the Council or other industries. The [industry] is
losing considerable amounts of money this year; consequently,
"Red Dog" is expecting to lose about $40 million dollars this
year. She remarked, "So, we're not exactly a deep pocket at
this point in time, but it's something that I could take back
and ask."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested discussing the possibility of
a joint effort with the state and the companies.
Number 2000
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report CSHB 503 [HB 503, as
amended] out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
Number 1970
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for purposes of discussion. He
referred to previous discussion about the possibility of a
review and asked Ms. MacCay if it could be made available in the
near future so the House Finance Committee would have more
answers about finances than currently available.
MS. MACCAY indicated she could get back with an answer in time
for the House Finance Committee's meeting and that the Council
was expecting, by the aforementioned meeting, that some
"creative solutions would need to be sought."
Number 1922
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN removed his objection.
Number 1912
CO-CHAIR MASEK indicated CSHB 503(RES) was moved out of the
House Resources Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIR MASEK called an at-ease from 2:23 p.m. to 2:25 p.m.
HB 376-FISH & GAME IN NAVIGABLE WATERS
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 376, "An Act relating to management of fish
and game in and on the navigable waters and submerged lands of
Alaska."
CO-CHAIR MASEK noted that Representative Ogan, sponsor of HB
376, was in another meeting. She mentioned that there had been
previous discussion on HB 376. [It had failed to move out of
committee at the second hearing, on 3/04/02.]
Number 1871
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report HB 376 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Number 1869
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS objected.
CO-CHAIR MASEK, in response to Representatives Green and Stevens
regarding the unexpected hearing of HB 376, said the bill had
been brought up under [bills] "previously heard."
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fate, Chenault,
Green, McGuire, and Masek voted to move HB 376 out of committee.
Representative Stevens voted against it. Therefore, HB 376 was
moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of
5-1.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:29 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|