Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
02/17/2020 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 | |
| HB138 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 17, 2020
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Lincoln, Co-Chair
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Dave Talerico
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Sara Rasmussen
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
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
05/03/19 (H) Heard & Held
05/03/19 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/10/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/10/20 (H) Heard & Held
02/10/20 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/14/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/14/20 (H) Heard & Held
02/14/20 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/17/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as the sponsor of HB 138, provided
comments and answered questions during the hearing of the bill.
TREVER FULTON, Staff
Representative Chuck Kopp
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking on behalf of Representative Kopp,
sponsor of HB 138, answered a question during the hearing of HB
138.
LINDSAY LAYLAND, Deputy Director
United Tribes of Bristol Bay
Dillingham. Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and answered questions
during the hearing of HB 138.
MARIE MARKS, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing of HB
138.
RANDY BATES, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing of
138.
EMMA POKON, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing of HB
138.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:14 PM
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Hannan,
Talerico, Rauscher, Hopkins, Lincoln, and Tarr were present at
the call to order. Representatives Spohnholz, Tuck, and
Rasmussen arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 138-NATIONAL RESOURCE WATER DESIGNATION
1:03:47 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the only 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."
[Before the committee was the committee substitute for HB 138,
Version K, adopted as a working document during the bill hearing
on 2/10/20.]
1:06:05 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:06 p.m. to 1:08 p.m.
CO-CHAIR TARR described supporting documents that were included
in the committee packet.
1:08:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
the sponsor of HB 138, said one concern he has heard about the
bill is that it would create a greater hurdle to the designation
of Tier 3 waters; however, this is not the case nor the intent
of the bill. In fact, HB 138 would codify the existing process,
and balances with it a science-based administrative process.
[Submitting a nomination through] the advisory commission would
be discretionary, and a nominator could directly ask a
legislator to file a bill, although a recommendation by the
advisory commission would strengthen a nomination because of
additional science-based information presented through the
advisory commission. In addition, the advisory commission would
provide nominators a process which currently does not exist.
Representative Kopp turned to another concern that the
legislative designation "sets the bar too high, I would again
point out that the 118 legislative designated [refuges],
preserves, sanctuaries, [and] parks that we have throughout the
state, our river systems, all have been designated by the
legislature ...." Regarding testimony related to Tier 2 water
quality, he said the lower 12 miles of the Kenai River is a Tier
2 water system managed to a very high standard; any use or
development there could not impede its existing uses which are
trout and salmon. He pointed out currently, any "in perpetuity"
restriction on a parcel of state land greater than 640 acres -
one square mile - requires legislative approval; however, the
Yakutat Forelands Tier 3 nomination is 1,875 square miles, and
other nominations add up to nearly 350 river miles and
collectively thousands of miles. Representative Kopp surmised a
Tier 3 designation that covers thousands of square miles should
have legislative approval.
1:13:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP turned to another concern, that science has
been removed from the [Tier 3 designation] process. He stated
HB 138 would require that a nomination meet a minimum of
criteria in order to be considered by the commission, which
"injects science into the process whereas ... our current
process, it does not." The criteria require the nomination
include information on water quality, an explanation of what
makes the waterbody exceptional, and the impact of the
designation to users. He observed the aforementioned criteria
bring fair, evidenced-based vetting into a process that is now
simply a policy call by the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN returned attention to areas that have been
already protected by the legislature, such as the Chilkat River
State Critical Habitat Area ("critical habitat"), created in
1972, and the Alaska Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve ("eagle
preserve"), created in 1982. She reported the nominators of the
Chilkat River for Tier 3 designation do not believe the
protections in place protect the water and uplands of the
Chilkat River.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said the aforementioned areas are protected
to a high standard under a Tier 2 designation. A Tier 2
designation protects any uses in the area necessary for the
ecological system to thrive. When compared with the Tier 3
standard, the difference is "in perpetuity." He noted there are
few Tier 3 protections in Oregon and California, and Tier 3
protections are significantly above Tier 2.
1:17:28 PM
TREVER FULTON, Staff, Representative Chuck Kopp, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kopp, sponsor of HB
138, explained the aforementioned 118 state designated areas,
including [areas on the Chilkat River], achieved designation
through a legislative process that created certain restrictions
on activities on the land, but the designations do not
specifically address activities on the water. He pointed out
the procedure to place similar restrictions on the water should
also be a legislative process.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised two separate legislative bodies
sought protection for habitat and the waterway by establishing
the [Chilkat River State Critical Habitat Area and the Alaska
Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve], but ongoing discussion of Tier 3
water indicates those areas may not have protection sufficient
to prevent degradation of the water [in the Chilkat River]. She
remarked:
I've looked at a number of states, when they've
created their Tier 3 statutes, have rolled in, in
essence creating the grandfather category of all these
that have previously, either congressionally or
legislatively, been protected [and] need to be
grandfathered in so you don't have to start over and
come back and ask for that protection because we've
already - [for example,] Glacier Bay National Park we
presume, meets the water quality levels that our state
statute would be creating in Tier 3, but just to
clarify in case lawyers 50 years from now say, "Well
it wasn't Tier 3, it was just a national park."
1:19:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said:
I would be surprised if any state has grandfathered in
large sweeping areas that are already protected -
preserves, parks, waterbodies - because each Tier 3
designation is, is quite exceptional, which is why I,
I mentioned ... most states are, have very few of
these designations. ... I would also say, and I
think we need to all remind all our constituents, is
right now we have a process that has failed - no
nominations are being taken up.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP restated provisions within HB 138.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN, in response to Representative Kopp, read from
Montana legislation related to Tier 3 designation as follows
[document not provided]:
all state service waters located wholly within the
boundaries of designated national parks or wilderness
areas as of October 1, 1995, are outstanding resource
waters ... other state waters may be designated in the
future, subject to approval by the legislature.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN said at least one state initiated its Tier 3
designation process by broadly designating waters within
national parks and wilderness areas.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ directed attention to a document
[entitled, Partial State Summary of ONRW/Tier 3 Designations
March 2019]], that indicated Utah, which is also a resource
extraction state, has numerous designations. She said Utah and
several other states have boards or commissions that
[designate], and designations may or may not also require
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said Utah's constitution differs from
Alaska's; his intent is to create a process consistent with
Alaska's constitution, which reserves the power to the
legislature unless the legislature delegates its power.
Further, he urged the committee to focus its discussion away
from the good or bad aspects of a Tier 3 designation and back to
the process of Tier 3 nominations.
1:24:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ observed other states have Tier 3 water
designations and cautioned there may be unwarranted alarm about
the designations. She said:
I don't get the sense that we're like absolutely
locking up waters by ... having Tier 3 water
designations ... we're putting some bumpers on it,
which I think is good. ... I don't think that it is
the end of the world if we pass this legislation and
set in, set in place a process that is transparent for
the public, that's consistent with our constitution, I
also don't think that we would be ending all
development in the state of Alaska if we were to ...
increase the number of Tier 3 water designations in
the state ....
CO-CHAIR TARR asked for more information on the advisory
commission as to its membership and the economic impact analysis
that is required for a complete nomination.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said the intent of the bill is to create a
balanced commission; he suggested the commission could become
more balanced by additional seats for tribal entities and
business interests. As far as the economic impact analysis, he
said, "If I was to speak legislative intention into the record,
it would be 'reasonableness' and I think the advisory
commission, collectively, because they would be a balanced
board, would be looking at what was reasonable, because the
nomination can be as small as one square mile or you know, 1,835
square miles, they might require more for an area that big ...."
He stressed the economic analysis would reflect what is
important from the view of the nominator.
1:29:49 PM
LINDSAY LAYLAND, deputy director, United Tribes of Bristol Bay
(UTBB), informed the committee UTBB is a tribal consortium
working to protect the traditional way of life of the Yup'ik,
Alutiiq, and Dena'ina people of Bristol Bay; UTBB represents 15
tribal governments making up over 80 percent of the region's
population. Tribal members depend on a subsistence way of life
to sustain cultural, physical, and spiritual wellbeing, a way of
life rooted in the pristine environment provided by the Bristol
Bay watershed, which is why it is necessary to include cultural
significance as a determining factor in designating outstanding
national resource waters (ONRWs). Ms. Layland said in the late
2000s, tribal partner Nunamta Aulukestai nominated the Koktuli
River in the Bristol Bay watershed for a Tier 3 waterbody
designation; the Koktuli River is critical to the health of the
Bristol Bay watershed and its fishery. In 2016, UTBB submitted
a proposed antidegradation Tier 3 ONRW nomination and
designation process that included scientific review, public
participation, and ecological, recreational, economic,
subsistence, and cultural factors. In 2018, UTBB supported the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in collecting
public testimony in Bristol Bay on the nomination and
designation process; public testimony revealed the need for
cultural significance to be added to the existing definition of
an ONRW and that DEC should be the governing body in ONRW
designations. Further, UTBB supports tribal governments'
influence in developing a fair, culturally relevant,
environmentally appropriate, and economically sensible ONRW
designation process. Ms. Layland stressed UTBB and others must
continue to have a role in the ONRW process; in fact, after
years of involvement providing constructive proposals, Bristol
Bay organizations are faced with a bill that undermines elements
of Tier 3 nomination criteria. The nomination proposal for the
Koktuli River is dormant, but the resolution is paramount to the
people of Bristol Bay and its multi-billion dollar commercial
fishing industry: to omit cultural significance as a factor in
the designation process is to omit the culture of the indigenous
people of the state and their stewardship of the land and water.
1:33:25 PM
MS. LAYLAND directed attention to the bill's provision to
establish a water advisory commission, which would add a
politically-motivated aspect to the process because members of
the commission would be appointed by a partisan governor.
Further, HB 138 directs that one seat on the commission would be
reserved for a tribal entity or a Native corporation; however,
Native corporations are not synonymous with tribal governments,
but serve as for-profit entities with differing priorities and
values from tribes. Ms. Layland said, "So in no way is it
adequate or appropriate for tribes to continue to be tokenized
on commissions with one seat on a politicized commission that
limits tribal voice to be truly heard and considered." An
additional concern is that federally recognized tribes are not
eligible to nominate ONRWs: HB 138 directs a resident of the
state can nominate, and a resident is legally defined as a
person, which does not explicitly include federally recognized
tribes. She stressed future proposed versions of the bill must
include tribal governments as entities that may nominate Tier 3
waters along with other entities that are currently eligible.
Ms. Layland concluded UTBB supports a public process - not a
political process - that is a science-based process and includes
consideration of ecological and cultural values, and which
places decision-making authority with DEC. She noted UTBB would
submit written testimony and stated UTBB opposes the bill as
written.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN pointed out the commissioner of DEC is
appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature; she
questioned why a nomination process facilitated by DEC would be
less of a political process than a legislative approval process.
MS. LAYLAND clarified UTBB does not oppose just the commission;
she acknowledged both [the advisory commission] appointed by the
governor and the legislative body are political; however, DEC
should be the governing body in ONRW decisions because the
legislature delegated authority to DEC to establish water
quality standards.
1:37:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN remarked:
I'm a little bit confused as to how one person, who is
selected through a political process - the
commissioner is appointed through a political process
- how that's less concerning than the legislative
approval process.
MS. LAYLAND opined the DEC commissioner would not be the sole
authority reviewing the applications and nominations; DEC staff,
who have lengthy expertise in water quality, would review
nominations and make recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked how the bill undermines the criteria
for a Tier 3 nomination.
MS. LAYLAND explained cultural significance is not mentioned in
the bill as [a criterion] in the nomination of Tier 3 waters,
therefore, not including cultural significance as a critical
element discounts subsistence activities.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked Ms. Layland for a definition of cultural
resource that could be written into legislation.
MS. LAYLAND offered to provide a definition.
CO-CHAIR TARR stated HB 138 raises a question as to whether the
legislature can delegate designation of Tier 3 water to DEC; the
executive branch has advised not, however, a differing legal
opinion has been provided by Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency.
1:42:28 PM
MARIE MARKS, attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, referred to a legal
memo from [Emily Nauman, Legislative Legal Services], dated
5/2/19 that addresses whether DEC has the authority to designate
water as outstanding national resource water (ONRW). Ms. Marks
said the legislature has delegated general authority to DEC to
regulate pollution and to establish water quality standards.
Further, courts have allowed the legislature to delegate broad
authority to agencies when they are regulating a narrow field,
as in this issue. She stated the legislature is authorized to
delegate broad authority to the executive branch to address a
narrow field of regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK questioned why a former DEC commissioner
said he did not believe he had authority.
MS. MARKS deferred to the Department of Law or the executive
branch regarding the perspectives of executive branch agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked how regulations for Tier 1, Tier 2,
and Tier 3 differ.
MS. MARKS deferred to DEC to discuss its ability to designate
Tier 1 and Tier 2; she expressed her understanding Tier 1 and
Tier 2 designations come with the authority to regulate water
quality and purity standards. She restated the legislature has
granted DEC broad authority to regulate water quality standards
and pollution.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS posited if the legislature designates
ONRW, whether the statute can include specific exemptions into
the designation and have the designation remain Tier 3. For
example, exemptions for certain recreational use or other uses.
1:47:21 PM
MS. MARKS advised the Clean Water Act requires each state to
establish antidegradation policies and federal regulations
require each state to adopt a policy to maintain and protect
waters of exceptional recreational and ecological significance
that constitute an outstanding national resource. The federal
law does not require a state to designate waters for protection
but requires that states have a mechanism for nominating and
designating these waters. In addition, federal law does not
require the process to include specific criteria.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ referred to a document [entitled, State
of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Division of
Water Policy and Procedure Guidance Relating to the Nomination
and Designation of Tier 3 Waters] dated 11/21/18. She remarked:
... we actually have a policy and procedure document
that is dated November 21, 2018, that, from the
Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of
Water, that actually says, not that they didn't have
the authority, but that they were unable to reach
consensus in their sort of, stakeholder engagement
process in order to develop a process ... so it wasn't
that they didn't believe they had the authority but
that they just literally couldn't get to consensus.
And they reference about ten years' worth of
stakeholder engagement which I think is interesting
going back to the ... earlier comments that "Oh we
have kind of a political problem really more than a
policy problem," ... or as much as a policy problem,
let me correct that.
1:50:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked Ms. Marks whether a process that
would satisfy the federal requirement could be a process that
the state legislature nominates and designates Tier 3 waterways
via a bill.
MS. MARKS expressed her understanding there is not a restriction
under the federal regulations on what the process could entail.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN remarked:
Legislatures already have the authority to designate -
protect the status for lands within their boundary,
but the feds say we have to have one to designate
outstanding national waterways, so if we simply
reiterate that we, the legislature, have the authority
to designate both our land and waters, we've satisfied
the EPA, and ... that could be our process to comply
with the federal law ....
MS. MARKS explained EPA can approve or disapprove Alaska's
policy and if the policy is disapproved, EPA will notify the
state how to obtain approval. If the state fails to comply,
EPA can overrule and create a federal policy that complies with
its interpretation of the Clean Water Act. However, as long as
EPA agrees with the state policy, Representative Hannan's
statement is correct.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked whether a Tier 3 designation equates with a
"set aside" of waters or a management policy for waters.
MS. MARKS said the legislature has delegated to DEC broad
authority to regulate through AS 46.03.080, therefore, DEC can
establish standards for water quality and purity and regulations
or policies, not only related to Tier 3 water, but to regulate
pollution and water. The ability of DEC to designate water as
Tier 3 water flows from its broad authority, which can include
many categories.
1:57:45 PM
RANDY BATES, director, Division of Water, DEC, gave brief
introductory remarks.
1:59:36 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
MR. BATES said Alaska's waters are currently well-managed
through DEC's robust permitting process. Current policy, dated
11/21/18, directs nominators to send Tier 3 water nominations to
a legislator or legislative committee for consideration as a
bill, a policy that would be codified in statute by HB 138. He
said DEC believes a designation of Tier 3 water is an
appropriation of state resources and therefore, is within the
purview of the legislature. Mr. Bates directed attention to
[question number 5 from a document provided in the committee
packet entitled, "Questions and Invited Testimony for Monday"],
which asked: What can and cannot be discharged into a Tier 1,
Tier 2, and Tier 3 waterbody and what activities are limited in
a Tier 3 waterbody? He explained all discharges are permitted
under the Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES)
program and 18 Alaska Administrative Code (ACC) 83 APDES
regulations; DEC does not classify or designate waters as Tier 1
or Tier 2 because protection levels are determined during the
permitting process for a wastewater discharge according to water
quality standard regulations. Tier 1 waters are waters for
which not all water quality criteria are met, which can be due
to natural or manmade pollution. Tier 2 waters are high quality
waters in which all water quality criteria are met. Tier 3
waters are outstanding and are required to be preserved in their
current status. Mr. Bates directed attention to a document
[entitled, "Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Water Outstanding National Resource Water (Tier 3
water) Fact Sheet"], included in the committee packet. He
further explained regulated wastewater point source discharges -
a permitted activity - and non-point source discharges, which
degrade or lower the water quality of a designated Tier 3 water,
are not allowable with the exception of activities that would
result in a temporary short-term and limited change in the water
quality.
2:06:12 PM
MR. BATES continued to what would be allowed in a Tier 3
waterbody and said Tier 3 water designations require maintenance
of the level of water quality at the time of designation.
Previously permitted discharges would be allowed to continue;
however, previously permitted discharges would not be allowed to
increase their volume or concentration. Further, new point
source discharges would not be allowed, unless there would be no
change to the baseline water quality. He advised Tier 3
designation would likely prohibit any new industrial or
municipal discharges.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS surmised if the Chena River were
designated a Tier 3 waterway, [current levels of pollutants
discharged into the river] would be "grandfathered" in and would
not need to stop.
MR. BATES said correct. The department would evaluate the
current baseline water quality and establish that level of water
quality in the designation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS questioned whether an entity, such as the
City of Fairbanks, or a village, would be allowed to install a
new septic system, or a new city water system, which would
affect a Tier 3 waterway.
MR. BATES said a point source discharge, such as an outfall or
pipe, that changes the water quality to exceed known values
would not be allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS gave an example of water coming from a
mine that changes the water quality but does not lower the water
quality.
MR. BATES was unsure about a facility that gathers and cleans
water; however, as long as the discharge from a point source
facility does not affect the water quality, or create
exceedances, the facility would be allowed. In further response
to Representative Hopkins, he said:
When we go through the permitting process [DEC] would
take a look at the designation, make sure that that
permitted activity doesn't degrade water quality
there. If that's the case, we would be able to issue
that permit, and that facility would be able to go
ahead and operate as they would ... with the
conditions in the permit that we would put in place to
maintain that water quality. There would most likely
be sampling and monitoring going on, on a routine
basis, to make sure that the discharge of that
facility is not degrading water quality beyond the
parameters that are set out.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS has heard recreational motorboats would
not be allowed under a Tier 3 designation. He asked for more
detail on recreational activities disallowed in a Tier 3
waterway.
2:11:23 PM
MR. BATES expanded the question as follows: If activities such
as motorboats, cleaning fish, culture camps, and private septic
systems continue beyond short term, could they be denied under
Tier 3 designations? He answered the aforementioned activities
are not typically regulated under the Clean Water Act permitting
requirements, and thus typically don't result in long-term
persistent degradation of water quality; however, in the case of
impairment, the waterbody would be designated as impaired, and
DEC would develop a waterbody recovery plan to reduce
pollutants.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS gave an example that the operator of a
leaking outboard motor driven down a Tier 3 waterway would not
be fined by DEC or EPA for a water quality violation because
his/her action is not regulated by the Clean Water Act.
MR. BATES stated DEC does not regulate non-point source
activities such as discharges from a motorboat.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked for DEC's definition of short-
term uses.
MR. BATES explained short-term is not in perpetuity or over
years; for example, short-term can be a day, a week, a month,
and in rare occurrences, a year or more. Further, point source
activities may be a construction project, building a bridge,
road construction, or other activities that occur for a short
duration of time - not a continual discharge - but temporary in
time and space.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN read from the Alaska State
Constitution, article 8, section 2, as follows:
General Authority. The legislature shall provide for
the utilization, development, and conservation of all
natural resources belonging to the state, including
land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its
people.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN pointed out the recreational use of a
waterbody could continue over a 20- to 30-year period of time;
for example, the use of jet skis and motorboats on Big Lake each
summer, which causes chemicals to enter the water. She asked
whether the impact of recreational use could be the equivalent
of discharge from resource development; if so, she surmised the
legislature would have to decide whether recreation or
development activities provide the maximum benefit of the
people. She said the definition of short-term use is very vague
and questioned why the state has stringent permitting processes
for development but allows recreational activities to
potentially damage bodies of water without repercussion.
MR. BATES restated jet skis and motorboats are considered non-
point source activities; if DEC detected a change in the water
quality of a Tier 3 waterbody, it would develop a recovery plan
that could reduce recreational use to address the water quality
issue.
2:19:35 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
CO-CHAIR TARR returned attention to [questions 9 and 10 from a
document provided in the committee packed entitled, "Questions
and Invited Testimony for Monday"], which read [original
punctuation provided]:
9. How would a Tier 3 designation impact village
sewer or water septic system?
10. What is the difference between point and non-
point sources of pollution?
MR. BATES said point source is defined as a discernable,
confined, and discreet conveyance including a pipe, ditch,
channel, tunnel, conduit, well, container, rolling stock, or
vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants could be
discharged; non-point source means a source of pollution other
than a point source. For example, a non-point source could be
runoff from a parking lot to a nearby stream; a point source
could be discharge from a cruise ship outfall.
2:22:27 PM
EMMA POKON, deputy commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
DEC, further explained a regulated or permitted facility is
issued a wastewater permit by DEC which limits what could be
discharged from the facility; however, DEC may not have control
over non-point source discharges such as runoff from vehicles on
a road, even though there may be a cumulative impact from non-
point source pollutants to the water quality standards of a
waterbody.
MR. BATES directed attention to question 11 which read [original
punctuation provided]:
11. How would DEC regulate point v. non-point sources
of pollution in a tier 3 water?
MR. BATES said DEC could not authorize any new or increased
point source discharges if they have the effect of changing the
quality of a Tier 3 water. For non-point sources, DEC would use
its enforcement authority for discharge to a Tier 3 waterbody
that degrades the quality of water; non-point sources would not
be allowed to degrade the water quality of a Tier 3 waterbody.
As related to septic systems in villages, he advised DEC
authorizes septic system discharges to subsurface water via
[engineering plan reviews]; septic systems are designed to avoid
discharge to surface water and, therefore, are not supposed to
affect surface waters.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS gave an example of above ground septic
systems which discharge drinkable water and that are currently
in use in the U.S. and Canada. He asked whether above ground
systems discharging clean water would be allowable as a point
source discharge.
MS. POKON pointed out DEC typically issues permits for point
source discharges deemed not to violate the state's water
quality standards; however, the water quality in a Tier 3
waterbody may be higher than DEC's current standards thus DEC
would not be able to authorize a discharge even though the
discharge would not result in a violation of DEC's water quality
standards. She clarified there are limitations to DEC's ability
to authorize a discharge because it would lower the water
quality, even though the water quality would not be below DEC's
standards.
2:27:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for the difference between
changing water quality and degrading water quality and whether
the water discharged from a Lifewater Engineering Company septic
system - which is cleaner than the water in the river in which
it is discharged - would be allowed.
MS. POKON said if the discharge does not result in an adverse
impact on the water quality, it would be allowable.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked, "Is that as the water is tested
when it becomes a Tier 3? So, everything that's discharging
into it that day is grandfathered in?"
MR. BATES said yes. When a Tier 3 waterbody is designated, the
designation is based on the waterbody's current water quality
parameters, with all activities contributing to the water
quality baseline.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER questioned whether a waterbody could be
so large that a discharge would not change the quality of the
water; for example, can a sewer discharge into a large body of
water and "does it matter?"
MR. BATES expressed his understanding any degradation of the
water quality anywhere in the waterbody would be ...
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER suggested "a little drop of anything in
there and you wouldn't be able to detect the water quality."
MR. BATES offered to research the question.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked whether DEC has records of water
quality for all the bodies of water in the state; if so, how
long have records been kept and how often measurements taken
are.
2:31:17 PM
MR. BATES said DEC does not have a comprehensive list of all the
waterbodies in the state and their water quality
characteristics; at the time of a Tier 3 nomination, the
nominator must develop water quality baseline information.
However, if DEC has baseline information, it will share with the
nominator.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised Representative Rauscher's
questions are related to mixing zones, which are allowed under
Tier 2 permitting; she asked whether mixing zones are ever
permitted in Tier 3 waterbodies and how long, under a Tier 2
permit, is a mixing zone allowed to degrade Tier 2 water.
MR. BATES offered to provide responses to questions related to
mixing zones.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN returned attention to the Chilkat River,
which flows along Chilkat State Park, an eagle preserve, and a
critical habitat area; she asked whether DEC has a role in
regulations related to these areas, which are a result of
legislative processes that have designated some protection. She
further questioned whether these areas are afforded any special
status, as relates to permitted water degradation, or whether
the current legislative designations fail to provide any special
protection for water.
MS. POKON explained DEC protects water quality for all uses; for
example, water quality can be protected for swimming and for
certain aquatic species. She remarked:
For DEC in Alaska, with a few exceptions, we're
looking at all uses. I think part of the protection
provided by those designations is park or critical
habitat, part of what you're getting at there, that is
limiting the, the activity that can happen within the
boundaries of that area, and so you're not going to
see, you know, the, the mine that's seeking a permit
to discharge into the waterbody because that activity
is going to be limited by the, the land designation.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN advised a mine that has applied for a
permit is located adjacent to, but outside, the eagle preserve
so, [the developers of the mine] believe there is no discharge
permit needed, due to its location upriver from the preserve.
She surmised the protection of land that has been designated by
the legislature in various ways does not grant protection to
water under current state law; in fact, to protect the waterway,
specific legislation to protect the water is required.
2:36:04 PM
MR. BATES observed the eagle preserve and the critical habitat
area are designated by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADFG), and the other area is a state park [designated by the
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural
Resources (DNR)]; ADFG and DNR designate areas for independent
and specific purposes, as defined by ADFG and DNR statutes.
Tier 3 waters are the purview of DEC, thus the purpose of
designating the waterway as Tier 3 waters would be so DEC could
address the water quality issues. He expressed his belief the
designations from the other agencies do not have the authority
to manage water quality.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether DEC has the authority to
regulate water quality over federally protected lands such as
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.
MS. POKON stated DEC holds primacy under the Clean Water Act for
issuing Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES)
permits and would be the regulatory authority for discharge to
state waters and to waters in "a federally owned area."
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether waters surrounding Glacier
Bay National Park and Preserve meet Tier 3 status and if a Tier
3 designation would provide additional protection. Further, she
questioned whether DEC asserts said waters already have a Tier 3
level of protection because they [surround] federally designated
parkland.
2:38:53 PM
MS. POKON answered:
DEC believes that our water quality standards are
protective of water quality for both human health and
the environment. I think the, the Tier 3 designation
is, is more protective, but in terms of what
pollutants may be discharged, if our water quality
standards are met, we believe that's protective as to
human health and the environment.
CO-CHAIR TARR surmised in the example of a national park,
because activities are restricted on land and water in a
national park, DEC would never receive a permit application for
activities in that location.
MS. POKON said, broadly speaking, yes. She added the authority
of one agency to manage the land as a park differs from DEC's
authority to protect water quality; however, both agencies would
address what activities are allowed and under what conditions.
CO-CHAIR TARR remarked:
Under the point source ... you're going to issue a
permit when you go to issue that permit, you're going
to evaluate whether it's a Tier 1 or a Tier 2 or a
Tier 3 waterbody. Under the nonpoint source, we don't
have primacy ... so those activities, so long as they
wouldn't violate the underlying water quality
standards as established in the State of Alaska, could
be allowable activities in a Tier 3 waterbody so long
as the long-term impact was flatlined ....
MS. POKON clarified if nonpoint sources are impairing water
quality DEC would seek to address that issue.
2:42:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked Ms. Marks whether DEC, DNR, and
ADFG were - at the same time - granted statutory authority to
regulate their respective jurisdictions.
MS. MARKS was unsure and offered to provide comparisons of when
statutes granting authority for the eagle preserve were enacted
compared to those of DEC. She asked which DNR statutes
Representative Rasmussen wished her to review.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN reported previous testimony revealed
the legislature delegated the authority to regulate water to DEC
in 1971 and the Clean Water Act was not in effect until 1983.
Because there was no Tier 3 water status in 1971, and DEC
statutes have not been updated, she questioned whether DEC's
authority [over Tier 3 waters] is valid.
MS. MARKS explained AS 46.03.080, enacted in 1971, provided DEC
broad authority to regulate water, and which has been applied
very broadly since 1971 and supported by the courts; she noted
the legislature has the ability to limit and restrict DEC's
authority but has not done so, and opined laws subsequent to
1971 would not restrict DEC's authority granted in AS 46.03.080
and AS 46.03.050.
2:46:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated the executive branch advised [the
designation of Tier 3 waters] should be a legislative decision,
because a designation would be an appropriation of state
resources, and asked Ms. Marks for the legislature's
constitutional authority statement.
MS. MARKS advised the constitution does not define
appropriation, but appropriation has been defined through case
law and interpreted to mean the legislature can make an
allocation decision or choose not to do so; therefore, the issue
is whether the allocation of resources can be delegated to a
department. She opined the allocation of resources is within
the legislature's purview and the courts have ruled the
legislature can delegate to a department the decision on how and
where to use resources, whether it is an allocation or an
appropriation.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK surmised Tier 1 and Tier 2 designations are
also appropriations that have been legislatively delegated to
DEC.
MS. MARKS remarked:
Whether it comes from the constitutional authority to
allocate resources or where it comes through a
constitutional authority to, to, basically manage the
state's resources, generally. So, there's two
constitutional provisions: the legislature can
appropriate, which includes allocating resources as
well as the legislature has the ability to manage the
state's resources. Whether it comes from either of
those two, that ability of the legislature to make
those decisions can be delegated ....
MS. MARKS opined the ability to appropriate is one
constitutional ground and the authority can also come from the
legislature's constitutional right to manage the state's
resources. She concluded it is very clear the legislature has
delegated the authority to DEC.
2:50:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO pointed out there is a difference
between statute and regulations. He recalled the state, within
the past three years, made regulatory changes to the Alaska
Administrative Code (AAC) and asked whether the updates are
related to the topic under discussion.
MS. POKON confirmed DEC finalized regulations in 2018 that
addressed how Tier 3 waters would be managed once designated,
but not how a Tier 3 waterbody is designated, which is the issue
before the committee.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN returned attention to a document included in
the committee packet [entitled, "State of Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation Division of Water Policy and
Procedure Guidance Relating to the Nomination and Designation of
Tier 3 Waters"] dated 11/21/18, and read:
The current process for nominating Tier 3 water
involves proposing the introduction of legislation to
make the designation.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN surmised there was a position taken by DEC
regarding a nomination and asked Ms. Pokon to clarify her
statement.
MS. POKON explained the regulations in the AAC addressed how a
Tier 3 water would be managed; the aforementioned guidance
[policy and procedure] document is a statement of DEC's position
that the designation follow a legislative process.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked:
It's not the administrative code and it's not in
regulation, but is ... it fair to say that it is the
policy of DEC that a Tier 3 nomination be designated
by legislation ... or is a guidance document not
really policy ...?
2:54:29 PM
MS. POKON indicated yes. The current process is through
legislative designation.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked when the current process was put
in effect.
MR. BATES stated the policy was put in place during the last
administration and the intent of the current commissioner of DEC
to is uphold and implement the guidance document; HB 138 would
codify the policy.
CO-CHAIR TARR returned attention to [question number 3 from a
document provided in the committee packet entitled, "Questions
and Invited Testimony for Monday"], which read: 2019 email from
EPA to DEC regarding DEC satisfying Clean Water Act requirement
for antidegradation implementation. What has changed since
then?
MR. BATES said in 2010, there was a guidance in place; in 2018,
DEC replaced the 2010 policy guidance and EPA confirmed that the
2018 policy guidance is a reasonable policy.
CO-CHAIR TARR concluded the 2018 guidance document is considered
the official policy.
MR. BATES said yes and restated the 2010 policy has been
superseded by the 2018 guidance document.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK directed attention to a document included in
the committee packet entitled, "Department of Environmental
Conservation 18 AAC 70 Water Quality Standards Amended as of
April 6, 2018," on pages 2 and 4, which read, in part [original
punctuation provided]:
18 AAC 70.015. Antidegradation policy. (a) It is the
state's antidegradation policy that
(1) existing water uses and the level of water
quality necessary to protect existing uses must be
maintained and protected;
(4) any water quality-based effluent limitations
established in accordance with 33 U.S.C 131(b)(1)(C)
(Clean Water Act, sec. 301(b)(1)(C). (Eff. 11/1/97,
Register 143; am 4/8/2012, Register 202; am 4/6/2018,
Register 226)
Authority: AS 46.03.010, AS 46.020, AS 46.03.050, AS
46.03.080, AS 46.030.100, AS 46.03.110, AS 46.03.710,
AS 46.03.720
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out DEC's aforementioned document
indicates, for the purposes of the antidegradation policy, DEC
has authority. He asked whether DEC would issue regulations in
this regard.
2:58:39 PM
MS. POKON agreed DEC claims the authority to establish water
quality standards and to preserve water quality in Alaska. She
added:
When you translate to the EPA regulations, and their
Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 framework, we're implementing
... the Tier 1, and the Tier 2, as the director said
earlier, through the permitting process. And so, we
establish what the existing uses are and then what
water quality standards are necessary to protect those
uses. The difference with Tier 3 is the, the room
that we have to, or the room that we don't have, to
allow uses of that water, even if they're protective
of those water quality standards, but would ... reduce
the water quality but not to a level that's below what
our water quality standards are.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN returned attention to the designations of
special areas, such as critical habitat and the eagle preserve,
and asked whether DEC currently manages water quality downstream
of special designated areas. He continued:
[Currently], like Tier 1, Tier 2, you're supposed to
manage for existing uses, or existing purposes, and
you have a lot of discretion in ... defining what
those are and what sort of water, water quality, [and
if] your parameters are compatible with those uses.
When you're making those determinations do you take
into account, like critical habitat areas and things
like that [which] are downstream from any proposed
discharge?
MS. POKON responded:
... I'm not familiar enough with everything in our
permits to, to say definitively whether or not there
is something that explicitly is addressing critical
habitat or some other land use designation downstream.
But as I said earlier our water quality standards are
set to protect all uses of water, so we'll establish
what the water quality standard is based on what,
based on the science that's protective of human health
and the environment. And that, you know, we think is,
is necessary to ensure there isn't going to be harm to
those uses.
[HB 138 was held over.]
3:02:25 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 138 Sponsor Statement 2.4.2020.pdf |
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 HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Draft CS v. K.pdf |
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 HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Sectional Analysis v. K 2.4.2020.pdf |
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 HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Slides 2.8.20.pdf |
HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Supporting Document - Tier 3 Nominations.pdf |
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 Document - DEC Summary of Tier 3 Designations 3.2019.pdf |
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 Document - DEC Letter re Review of Tier 3 in Other States 5.3.19.pdf |
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 Document - DNR Fact Sheet Legislatively Designated Areas 4.22.2019.pdf |
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 |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Testimony - As of 2.13.20.pdf |
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 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 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 |
| 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 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 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 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 |
| HB138 Supporting Material DEC Final Tier 3 Guidance 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 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 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 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 Document - Chilkat Indian Village Letter of Opposition 4.26.19.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 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 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 - Cook Inletkeeper Letter of Opposition 4.26.19.pdf |
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 Coalition Letter of Support 4.28.19.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 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 Letters of Opposition 4.29.19.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2020 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 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 - 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 |
| 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 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 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 |
| HB138 Additional Letters of Opposition.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 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 |
| HB 138 Answers from DEC to Questions on 2.10.20.pdf |
HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Testimony - As of 2.17.20.pdf |
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 Document - Legal Opinion re Person and Resident definitions 2.13.20.pdf |
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 Fiscal Note CS(RES)-DFG-CO-2-14-20.pdf |
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 HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Fiscal Note CSHB138-DNR-MLW-2-17-20.pdf |
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 HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Fiscal Note HB138CS(RES)-DEC-WIF-02-16-20.pdf |
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 HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |