03/13/2020 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB240 | |
| HB138 | |
| HB218 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 240 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 13, 2020
1:04 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
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Dave Talerico
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Sara Rasmussen
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 240
"An Act relating to pollutants; relating to perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances; relating to the duties of the
Department of Environmental Conservation; and relating to
firefighting substances."
- HEARD & HELD
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
HOUSE BILL NO. 218
"An Act relating to salt water sport fishing operators and salt
water sport fishing guides; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 240
SHORT TITLE: REGULATE PFAS USE; FIRE/WATER SAFETY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HANNAN
02/07/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/07/20 (H) RES, FIN
03/09/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/09/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/09/20 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/13/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 138
SHORT TITLE: NATIONAL RESOURCE WATER DESIGNATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KOPP
04/17/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/17/19 (H) RES, FIN
04/29/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/29/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/19 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/03/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
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
02/17/20 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/20 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/24/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/24/20 (H) Heard & Held
02/24/20 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/06/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/06/20 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/09/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/09/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/09/20 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/11/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/11/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/20 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/13/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 218
SHORT TITLE: SALT WATER FISHING: OPERATORS/GUIDES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/27/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/27/20 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
02/06/20 (H) FSH AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/06/20 (H) Heard & Held
02/06/20 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/13/20 (H) FSH AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/13/20 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/20 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/20/20 (H) FSH AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/20/20 (H) Moved CSHB 218(FSH) Out of Committee
02/20/20 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/21/20 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 5AM
02/21/20 (H) AM: KOPP, VANCE, TARR, KREISS-TOMKINS,
STUTES
03/13/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
RANDY KRAUSE, Fire Chief
Port of Seattle Fire Department
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 240.
RENEE LANI, Spokesperson
American Chemistry Council
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 240.
MELANIE LESH
Gustavus, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 240.
PAMELA MILLER, Executive Director
Alaska Community Action on Toxins
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 240.
STEVE RISOTTO, Spokesperson
American Chemistry Council
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 240.
GREG STREVELER, Retired Biologist
Gustavus PFAS Action Coalition
Gustavus, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 240.
DAVID BERREY, Spokesperson
Wake Up Alaskans to the Toxic Environmental Reality (WATER)
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 240.
JOHN BINDER, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
240.
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, answered questions during
the hearing on HB 138.
MARIE MARX, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
138.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 218 and answered questions.
RACHAEL HANKE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a sectional analysis during the
hearing on HB 218.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:38 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHN LINCOLN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives Tuck,
Hannan, Spohnholz, Hopkins, Tarr, and Lincoln were present at
the call to order.
HB 240-REGULATE PFAS USE; FIRE/WATER SAFETY
1:05:18 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN announced the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 240, "An Act relating to pollutants; relating to
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances; relating to the
duties of the Department of Environmental Conservation; and
relating to firefighting substances."
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN reminded the committee that HB 240 would
set in statute standards for clean drinking water and assure
that Alaskans who have been exposed to perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances have options for blood
monitoring.
1:07:12 PM
RANDY KRAUSE, Fire Chief, Port of Seattle Fire Department,
paraphrased from the following written testimony [original
punctuation provided]:
Thank you to the members of the House Resources
Committee for allowing me to testify today.
My name is Randy Krause, and I serve as the Fire Chief
for the Port of Seattle providing service to Sea-Tac
International Airport. I am here to share my support
for the bill before you, and to thank Committee Chair
Tarr and sponsoring Representative Hannan for their
leadership.
At the Port of Seattle, we have been actively involved
with the industry to find a solution and are working
with our partners at the Federal Aviation
Administration to encourage the implementation of new
fluorine-free firefighting foam.
While federal law currently requires the use of
firefighting foam that includes PFAS chemicals, our
airport director Lance Lyttle sent the FAA a letter in
2018 urging the FAA to aggressively pursue a fluorine-
free option.
The 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act passed by Congress
requires the evaluation and implementation of
fluorine-free foam by the end of 2021.
Many of my peers at airports across the globe have
already made the change to fluorine free foam and I
personally have witnessed fluorine free foam used with
great success and am confident the FAA will find a
suitable alternative within the deadline.
We recognize that there is concern in the firefighting
industry with the FAA meeting its 2021 deadline.
I, however, am confident the FAA will reach a solution
and I am looking forward to being one if not the first
airport in the United States to go fluorine free.
We do understand these types of bills have differing
effects on various industries. It appears you have
addressed some of the concerns we had in Washington
state with this bill and we are happy to work with and
help the sponsors as this moves forward.
Thank you, and with that I am happy to answer any
questions.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked Mr. Krause how he could assist the bill
sponsor.
MR. KRAUSE answered that through various organizations he has
been searching for a suitable alternative for the firefighting
industry at airports and soon will be involved in Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation, testing fluorine-free products. The U.S.
approach to finding a fluorine-free product has been tentative;
however, Heathrow Airport Limited, Copenhagen Airport, and
airports in Australia and all of the United Kingdom, have
switched to fluorine-free foam, are comfortable with the
product, and are excited because it is a biodegradable product
with zero cleanup costs or impacts. Speaking from his
experience, he said he offered his help to the fire chief at the
Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport and seeks to keep
all those working in the firefighting industry apprised in this
regard.
CO-CHAIR TARR noted the transition to alternatives by large
international airports could serve as a model for Alaska.
MR. KRAUSE advised that FAA has a list of products that are
approved for use at airports, none of which are fluorine-free
foam; however, there is a new testing facility to test fluorine-
free foam, and he and others are urging FAA to find suitable
products soon. Internationally, the firefighting industry has
completed a lot of testing and research; in fact, due to his
experience with testing, he said he would switch to fluorine-
free foam, certificated International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), United Nations, "level C foam" tomorrow, if
approved by FAA. He acknowledged at this time fluorine-free
foam is not as effective as aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF)
concentrates; however, AFFF cannot be used in training in
Washington, and training can make up for what he characterized
as a three-second delay in extinguishment.
1:14:25 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN opened public testimony on HB 240.
1:14:50 PM
RENEE LANI, Spokesperson, American Chemistry Council (ACC), said
Section 1 of HB 240 seeks to ban AFFF, with one exemption. The
American Chemistry Council is opposed to HB 240 for the
following reasons: AFFF is the most effective foam to fight
high hazard level flammable liquid fires in certain applications
and has proven effectiveness in large-scale tank fires and other
high hazard Class B fires due to its unique properties that have
been reported nationally and are proven to protect firefighters.
Fluorine-free foams provide an alternative in some applications,
such as spill fires and smaller tank fires, but do not provide
the same level of suppression and other capabilities. Certain
international airports have chosen to switch to fluorine-free
foams, but fluorinated foams are used in petrochemical
facilities to manage high hazard fire risk. Ms. Lani pointed
out that although HB 240 would allow continued use of PFAS foam
by the oil and gas industry, there may be other circumstances in
which the use of PFAS foam is necessary. She said any safe
alternative identified by the state fire marshal must provide
equivalent performance to AFFF formulations to ensure safety;
AFFF protects life and property in Class B fires and should be
used responsibly and discharges contained. She said ACC
supports the ban on the use of AFFF in training and also
supports the use of best management practices that reduce the
discharge of foam in all uses. In fact, legislation in other
states has required the use of best practices and banned the
release of PFAS foam into the environment, except in
emergencies, and ACC supports this approach, rather than that of
HB 240.
1:18:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked Ms. Lani to clarify ACC's specific
opposition to the bill.
MS. LANI explained ACC is generally opposed to [proposed new
section] 46.03.350, use of firefighting substances, and instead
recommends legislation related to the use of best practices, as
has been passed in Virginia and Wisconsin, which prohibits the
use of AFFF in training and limits some use in testing, but not
the use of AFFF when needed. She acknowledged not all fire
departments need AFFF because they respond to Class A fires.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out 46.03.350 would allow for PFAS
use in the oil and gas industry; he questioned whether ACC seeks
stronger or more restrictive language in the bill.
MS. LANI said subsection (a) is not broad enough. For example,
Class C fires may also involve ethanol; therefore, industries
other than the oil and gas industry need to have the option to
use AFFF. Further, subsection (b) does not make clear what safe
and effective means in all circumstances. She restated support
for legislation passed in Virginia [document not provided].
1:23:38 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR inquired as to ACC's position on adverse health
impacts related to the use of AFFF.
MS. LANI stated the chemical industry has always supported the
use of best practices to manage any exposure to chemicals; the
best practices she cited were developed by the Fire Fighting
Foam Coalition, which is an association that represents the
manufacturers of fluorine-free and fluorinated foam.
CO-CHAIR TARR restated her question specific to ACC's position
on adverse health effects from exposure to PFAS chemicals.
MS. LANI said PFAS chemicals describe a very broad term of
chemistry that poses varied hazards and profiles; the chemistry
indicative of fluorinated foam currently manufactured is
represented by perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) that is not
carcinogenic or mutant genic and does not have developmental or
reproductive toxicity. She urged for the use of best practices
with all chemistries.
1:26:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN questioned whether PFHxA has any health
impacts.
MS. LANI said she would provide citations demonstrating
scientific support for PFHxA; she said she could not address the
class of chemicals identified as PFAS. For example,
fluoropolymer is not used in firefighting foam and cannot be
absorbed by the body. She further explained the different
chemistries known as PFAS are chemistries with specific
characteristics, and she provided data specific to PFHxA, which
is the chemistry of AFFF manufactured today.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised PFHxA is not a chemical the bill
seeks to regulate and is not currently used in the manufacture
of AFFF.
MS. LANI restated PFHxA is currently used in AFFF.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN further asked whether PFHxA has no adverse
health impacts or lasting environmental impacts.
MS. LANI remarked:
I think that the weight of the evidence has
demonstrated that it has low risk. There are
certainly -- I cannot say that there is not a study
that does not suggest, you know, as with every
chemistry. I have seen, you know, for instance, the
CDC used to do NHANES biomonitoring tests for it in
human blood, but they actually stopped testing for it
because they weren't finding it in blood sampling that
they do repeatedly. We've also seen low detection
limits of it across all of the different water testing
that's being done in the country right now, throughout
the country. So, it presents low risk, that chemistry
that's being used.
1:29:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN recalled Ms. Lani's earlier statement that
the bill fails to provide exceptions for industries with high
risk for fire, in addition to the oil and gas industry, and
asked what industries store a high concentration of ethanol.
MS. LANI offered to provide further information.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stressed information that is pertinent to
Alaska is needed to ensure fire safety in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK returned attention to [proposed new section]
46.03.050 [(b)], noting the state fire marshal would determine
what is a safe and effective, alternative firefighting
substance; he questioned ACC's opposition to subsection (b), and
opined that the fire marshal should be trusted to protect
firefighter and public safety.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked Ms. Lani to identify the alternative
chemical with no health effects.
MS. LANI clarified the current chemistry used in AFFF is
perfluorohexanoic acid, known as PFHxA. In further response to
Co-Chair Tarr, she said she would provide additional information
on PFHxA, which is a long chain chemistry.
1:34:23 PM
MELANIE LESH informed the committee she lives in Gustavus, which
is located near the pristine waters of Glacier Bay National Park
and Preserve. She said Alaskans are lucky to live in an
isolated and beautiful state and there is irony in that for the
past eighteen months it has not been safe for her to drink her
well water; one of the benefits of HB 240 would be to provide
blood testing for those who have had groundwater contaminated
with PFAS chemicals. Her oncologist is concerned about the
chemicals to which she has been exposed over 35 years living in
Gustavus, but cannot provide testing. The bill would regulate
the use of PFAS chemicals and also would provide plasma data for
those who have been exposed. Ms. Lesh recalled testimony on
3/9/20 that revealed how important blood testing had been in the
resolution of issues that were raised by contamination
elsewhere.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked how the residents of Gustavus learned
of the contamination.
MS. LESH said the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF) leases a parcel of land at the airport to
businesses, and it was known for years that no one could drink
the water at the airport; that awareness prompted testing of the
[toxic plume, which is a underground pattern of contaminant] and
the realization that AFFF had entered the groundwater system.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK surmised DOT&PF had recommended its lessees
not use the water.
MS. LESH said the residents of Gustavus were not warned by
DOT&PF but were aware, anecdotally, not to drink from the water
fountain at the airport, so people began to think about their
wells.
1:39:30 PM
PAMELA MILLER, Executive Director, Alaska Community Action on
Toxics (ACAT), informed the committee ACAT is a statewide
environmental health, research, and advocacy organization. She
paraphrased from written testimony dated 3/5/20 and included in
the committee packet [original punctuation provided]:
We appreciate your leadership in sponsoring SB 176 and
HB 240, respectively. Alaska Community Action on
Toxics (ACAT) strongly supports these bills. We urge
passage by the Senate and House Resources Committees
and full legislature during the current session. PFAS
contamination represents a significant threat to
drinking water sources and public health throughout
Alaska. This requires urgent action from the
legislature to prevent further harm, ensure safe
drinking water supplies for contaminated communities
and responsible clean up, and measures to monitor and
protect the health of affected community members and
first responders.
In September 2019, ACAT released a report: Threats to
Drinking Water and Public Health in Alaska: The Scope
of the PFAS Problem, Consequences of Regulatory
Inaction, and Recommendations (www.akaction.org). For
this report, we reviewed hundreds of pages of
documents obtained through public record requests and
conducted a thorough review of the peer-reviewed
scientific literature. In Alaska, the dispersive use
of AFFF (aqueous film forming foam) on military bases
and airports has contaminated the drinking water of
communities from the North Slope to southeast Alaska.
To date, PFAS have been discovered at over 100
individual sites (mostly "AFFF source areas") in
nearly 30 locations. The State of Alaska has
identified 33 airports where AFFF is known or
suspected to have been released into the environment.
Of these, only 13 have been investigated to date. Ten
Alaska communities have PFAS in their drinking water
at levels deemed unsafe by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and it is likely that the
number of communities with contaminated water will
grow as more sampling is conducted throughout the
state.
PFAS are highly toxic at exceedingly low levels of
exposure. This is a significant public health concern
given the latest science that shows health effects
including: kidney and testicular cancer, high
cholesterol, thyroid disruption, ulcerative colitis,
pregnancy-induced hypertension, immune system effects,
and effects on mammary gland development and
breastfeeding duration. Firefighters suffer higher
rates of cancer than the general U.S. population and
are at risk from occupational exposures to PFAS. A new
study of women firefighters showed that they face high
exposures to toxic PFAS chemicals.
We look forward to working with members of the
legislature to ensure that the bills are as protective
as possible for the health of all Alaskans. Based on
current scientific evidence, we recommend a class-
based approach to setting water standards for PFAS
because many PFAS chemicals share similar
toxicological properties and adverse health endpoints,
often at extremely low exposure levels. The goal
should be to set a maximum contaminant level of zero
for the class to provide a proper margin of safety for
vulnerable infants and children and to protect public
health from the class of PFAS chemicals that are
extremely persistent, highly mobile, and linked with
adverse health effects at exceptionally low levels of
exposure. A combined limit of 2 ppt (for PFOA, PFOS,
PFNA, PFHxS, PFHxA and PFBS, with a separate level of
5 ppt for GenX) is reasonable given that with current
technology, removal of PFAS is feasible at that level.
Other states are taking a more class-based and health
protective approach.
In order to prevent further contamination of drinking
water sources and other water bodies, we also urge you
to explicitly prevent the discharge or use for
training purposes of class B firefighting foam that
contains PFAS chemicals, and that the legislation
include a ban on the use of PFAS in firefighting foam
such as those that have been supported by firefighters
and enacted in such states as Washington, Colorado,
and New Hampshire. On March 5, 2020, the Washington
State Legislature overwhelmingly approved the
strongest state ban in the country to phase out toxic
PFAS chemicals in firefighting foam and eliminate
important exemptions. We believe that this is a
precedent that the Alaska State Legislature should
follow.
Thank you for your consideration.
1:44:04 PM
STEVE RISOTTO, Spokesperson, American Chemistry Council, said
although ACC agrees with the testing of drinking water sources
in Alaska, and in minimizing potential PFAS contamination by the
use of AFFF, ACC does not support HB 240. He directed attention
to [HB 240, proposed new Section 1] and said it is inappropriate
for a legislative body to establish drinking water standards for
PFAS, because establishing water quality standards requires a
comprehensive review of available scientific and technical
information, by regulatory authorities, through a formal
rulemaking process. He pointed out the levels proposed in the
bill are based on levels that have been proposed in Michigan,
and Alaska should instead review EPA's PFAS Action Plan issued
in 2019, and EPA's recent announcement to move ahead to
establish drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS, which are
two substances for which EPA issued lifetime health advisories.
In 2016, EPA established health-based guidelines for PFOA and
PFOA at 70 parts per trillion in drinking water, based on water
consumption, exposure among sensitive populations, and exposure
to other sources. Turning to the blood testing provision in the
bill, Mr. Risotto said widescale blood testing should only be
conducted if based on analytical methods and followed by an
objective interpretation of results. Further, the PFAS testing
specified in the bill cannot provide information on historic
exposure in individuals or assist in predicting health effects
and, thus, would accomplish no purpose. Turning to the
liability provision in the bill, he said ACC also has concerns
about how the bill assigns liability.
1:47:33 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR agreed with the need for an objective review of
blood testing data; however, she questioned how blood testing
would fail to differentiate between historic exposure and
current exposure. She expressed her understanding blood testing
would provide information about adverse health impacts but is
too expensive for an individual to afford. Speaking from her
own perspective, Co-Chair Tarr advised residents are rightly
concerned about their health and the health of their families,
and she elaborated.
MR. RISOTTO restated there is no way to tie a specific level to
a specific health affect; an individual sample of blood would
not provide an historic profile and is very limited in its
ability to answer questions.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired as to whether a series of blood
tests, over a span of time, would indicate the source of one's
exposure and differentiate between background exposure and
direct consumption.
MR. RISOTTO said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) have been testing for PFOA, PFOS, and other substances,
and testing has shown a steady decline in blood levels for PFOA
and PFOS; he explained that exposure from dental floss and
cooking pans is from a polymer that is unlikely to transfer into
the blood of an individual because of the size of the molecule
and its insolubility.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN questioned whether blood samples taken
over a period of three years, from children exposed to AFFF,
would fail to reveal health risks and changing levels of
exposure.
MR. RISOTTO acknowledged blood testing would reveal the level of
exposure but would not give an indication of likely health
effects due to a lack of data.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired as to whether ACC supports blood
testing of responders to a fire but not of residents who are
exposed through drinking water in a community.
MR. RISOTTO agreed it would be useful to obtain a baseline on
the level of exposure accumulated by first responders.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked Mr. Risotto to recommend a useful testing
regime.
MR. RISOTTO said testing the water drinking water would reveal
community exposure; the CDC has fairly extensive data on many of
the products.
1:55:51 PM
GREG STREVELER said he has lived in Gustavus for 50 years and is
a retired Department of Natural Resources consultant and
biologist. He said his work and his joy in life are his
interest in the beauty, connectivity, and health of the Gustavus
ecosystem. Mr. Streveler said he serves as a chemist for the
Gustavus PFAS Action Coalition group, due to his background in
organic chemistry, and he warned levels of PFAS contamination in
Gustavus will come to reflect those of other places, which is a
real issue. He pointed out in the bill the list of chemicals,
and their cutoff concentrations, includes chemicals about which
much is known; as more becomes known, the allowable parts per
trillion concentrations are lowered. He directed attention to
the bill on page 2, lines 7-10, which read:
(b) For purposes of (a) of this section, the limit of
perfluoroalkyl substance or polyfluoroalkyl substance
contamination in water is the lesser of
(1) the limit established by the department in
regulation; or
(2) the following limits:
MR. STREVELER said the abovementioned provision is important
because he is convinced - as testing continues - allowable
concentrations will decline, and the bill correctly sets limits
now, and also gives the department flexibility to reduce the
limits if there are scientific reasons to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked how the community of Gustavus became
aware of the problem with its drinking water.
MR. STREVELER explained he became aware after the National Park
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, tested the well that
provides water to Gustavus School, and the test was positive.
2:00:15 PM
DAVID BERREY, spokesperson for Wake Up Alaskans to the Toxic
Environmental Reality (WATER) said Fairbanks is ground zero for
this issue and residents have had toxic levels in their wells
for many years. Mr. Berrey said the chemical companies refuse
to take responsibility for contamination, and EPA has been
talking about studies and action for 20-30 years, so states must
force responsibility onto the chemical companies. Alaska has no
chemical industry, but North Pole is contaminated with
sulfolane. Fairbanks has plumes from Eielson Air Force Base,
the training center at the airport, and Fort Wainwright, and its
high water table is contaminated with extremely high counts of
PFOS and PFOA. Mr. Berrey said small changes made to chemicals
have led to false claims of safety by the chemical companies,
but they know there are just as many problems. He remarked:
It's unconscionable what they're doing to us. It's up
to you to do something to protect us. We need to have
our blood tested in our area to show that we're
astronomically high in these chemicals. There's no
endemiological studies being done; there's no way to
find the data to begin with. We need help. We're
looking to you to help us.
2:03:34 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN, after ascertaining no one further wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 240.
CO-CHAIR TARR recalled in last year's capital budget there was
funding for testing and cleanup of PFAS contamination, and
intent language directing DOT&PF to test for all PFAS chemicals,
not only PFOS and PFOA; a subsequent report from DOT&PF
indicated $165,000 has been spent and she asked for an
additional update on ongoing work.
2:05:14 PM
JOHN BINDER, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, informed the
committee it took DOT&PF and DEC several months "freeing up that
money" in the capital appropriation, but the delay did not
inhibit the actions of the departments. Testing is continuing,
and DOT&PF has responded appropriately where tests are positive.
The reimbursable services agreements (RSAs) are in place to
access the capital funds and activities are well underway.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked for written details on where testing has
occurred, and the results, to inform the committee on the status
of remediation and whether additional funds are necessary.
MR. BINDER agreed to provide a summary.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked what action is taken when
contamination is found, in excess of DEC regulations, at a site
or in a community.
MR. BINDER explained that before a site is tested, DOT&PF
coordinates a workplan with DEC; when results are positive at a
certain level, DOT&PF determines a source of clean water and,
with DEC and the Division of Risk Management [within the
Department of Administration], determines a long-term solution.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked what is happening in Gustavus.
MR. BINDER said additional testing in Gustavus has identified
affected sites; there are several options for a long-term water
source, including water treatment and capturing rainwater in a
cistern. Each community is evaluated individually to determine
the best long-term solution.
2:09:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired as to other sites in the process
of mitigation, in addition to Gustavus and Fairbanks.
MR. BINDER said seven locations out of thirty-three suspect
sites have been tested. Working with DEC and the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) to garner information such as well
depths, groundwater flows, locations of private wells, and other
factors, DOT&PF categorized airports into levels of risk; nine
airports are at highest risk, and all but Iliamna and Aniak have
been tested. Because most of the suspect plumes surround
airports in rural areas, private wells are contaminated and
require individual solutions. If a [clean] public water source
is available, a connection to public water is generally the
preferred long-term solution, in fact, Fairbanks International
Airport provided water from the city water supply.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked how many more sites would be
tested this year.
MR. BINDER was unsure of how many in addition to Iliamna and
Aniak.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked for an estimate on the cost of
testing the remaining sites. She surmised long-term solutions
are to identify a new source of water and asked whether removal
of the contaminated plume would be an option.
MR. BINDER agreed to provide a written estimate of costs. The
department estimates $10 million would be needed to test all of
the remaining sites, and there would be additional costs to
respond to positive results. He said "forever chemicals" in
water are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to remove from
the ground, and treating the soil saturated with water is a
difficult challenge.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ questioned whether soil could be
removed and replaced.
2:15:04 PM
MR. BINDER further explained once the chemicals are in the
groundwater, even if the soil is removed and treated, after
rain, the groundwater will re-contaminate the clean soil;
however, he said removing and treating the soil may be possible
in some circumstances. He related that at Fairbanks
International Airport, a contractor is experimenting with carbon
injection into the plume to treat or prevent further
contamination, although results will be unknown for some time.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked why DOT&PF began testing in
Gustavus.
MR. BINDER stated awareness followed projects at Eielson Air
Force Base and in Fairbanks. The Department of Environmental
Conservation requested testing at Gustavus, and he expressed his
understanding the near location of an airport to residential
wells raises the risk and concerns about this issue.
2:18:08 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN announced that HB 240 was held over.
HB 138-NATIONAL RESOURCE WATER DESIGNATION
2:18:14 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN announced the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 138, "An Act requiring the designation of state
water as outstanding national resource water to occur in
statute; relating to management of outstanding national resource
water by the Department of Environmental Conservation; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 138, Version K,
adopted as a working document during the bill hearing on
2/10/20.]
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN handed the gavel to Co-Chair Tarr.
2:18:33 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:18 p.m. to 2:21 p.m.
2:21:25 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR explained forthcoming amendments.
2:22:13 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN moved to adopt [Amendment 10, K.22, labeled 31-
LS0811\K.22, Marx, 3/3/20, identified on the audio recording as
Amendment 12], which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 26:
Delete "resident of"
Insert "qualified nominator in"
Page 4, line 23:
Delete "."
Insert ";"
Page 4, following line 23:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(3) "qualified nominator" includes
(A) an individual who establishes residency
under AS 01.10.055;
(B) a corporation, company, partnership,
firm, association, organization, business, trust, or
society organized, incorporated, or headquartered in
the state;
(C) a federally recognized tribe or tribal
entity in the state;
(D) a municipality, an unincorporated
village, or another unit of local government in the
state."
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN explained [Amendment 10, K.22] expands and
clarifies who could nominate a waterbody for Tier 3 designation.
The original version of the bill limited the nominator to a
resident of the state; however, the amendment would change any
reference to a resident of the state to a reference to a
qualified nominator and defines that a qualified nominator
includes a resident of the state, varied organizations,
corporations, and other entities, a federally recognized tribe
or tribal entity in the state, and a municipality, a local
government, or an unincorporated village. He noted the length
of residency of a nominator was discussed but was not included
in the amendment.
2:25:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 138, expressed support for the amendment.
CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection and there being no further
objection, [Amendment 10, K.22] was adopted.
2:25:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN moved to adopt [Amendment 11, K.15,
labeled 31-LS0811\K.15, Marx, 2/20/20, identified on the audio
recording as Amendment 7], which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 4, lines 9 - 11:
Delete "does not constitute a final agency
decision or action, and the recommendation or action
is not subject to appeal, including appeal or review
under AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act)."
Insert "is a final agency decision and may be
appealed to the superior court under the Alaska Rules
of Appellate Procedure."
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN explained the amendment states clearly
that a recommendation or action of the commission, related to a
nomination that has been submitted to the commission, is a final
agency decision that may be appealed to the superior court under
the Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure. She said the
commission's decisions related to a Tier 3 water nomination
should be subject to a high level of scrutiny through an appeals
process.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN expressed opposition to the amendment because
it is clear a recommendation of the commission is not a final
decision; the designation requires that legislative action be
the final decision. He suggested the amendment complicates the
designation process, encourages litigation against the state,
and is contrary to the purpose of the bill, which is to have the
legislature evaluate and designate Tier 3 waters with the
support of the commission.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether there is a way for someone to
adjudicate the designation process.
2:28:11 PM
MARIE MARX, attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, said the bill states
a recommendation by the commission is not a final agency action
subject to review or appeal, which is the intent of the
legislature; however, a court can always consider the legality
of a decision. She restated [the bill] indicates the
recommendation should not be subject to review except in limited
circumstances, such as a decision or legislation that is
unconstitutional, arbitrary, or capricious.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK gave an example of a designation process
that was followed and asked if, after the legislature passed a
bill introduced by the governor, the decision would be subject
to review or appeal.
MS. MARX said the legislature has the constitutional power to
pass or not pass legislation, which cannot be infringed upon by
the court system.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked whether adoption of the amendment would
change the commission from an advisory commission.
MS. MARX restated the commission appears to be a purely advisory
body that lacks the ability to enforce or administer law; the
commission is intended to gather information and provide a
recommendation to the governor and the legislature. She said
she could not find a similar advisory body in existing statute
that has a process for the review of the opinion of the advisory
body. Some advisory bodies also have the ability to enforce or
administer the law; for example, the Office of the Ombudsman,
Legislative Agencies and Offices, investigates and issues
recommendations but it is a different type of agency. In
addition, bodies such as the Alaska Health Care Commission
(defunded), Department of Health and Social Services, or the
Alaska Tourism Marketing Board (disbanded), Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development, were also advisory
and did not have a mechanism in place for review. Ms. MARX
explained advisory bodies do not have a mechanism for review
because they do not issue decisions that affect the rights of a
person or that governs the conduct of the public. In fact, if
the commission declines to forward a recommendation to the
governor or the legislature, a nominator can submit its
nomination directly to a legislator. In this manner, the
commission is unique and without precedent for review or appeal.
In further response to Co-Chair Tarr, she agreed if a nominator
could not submit a nomination directly to a legislator, that
would change the nature of the commission.
2:35:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ questioned whether the fact that three
department commissioners serve on the commission affects the
advisory manner of the commission.
MS. MARX referred to an opinion from the attorney general dated
7/19/16 that discussed components of advisory agencies and
determined that the role of an advisory committee is to gather
information, make recommendations and, in some cases, prepare
advisory opinions or write reports. Further, advisory
committees do not administer or enforce the law. She said she
would provide the aforementioned written opinion to the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK directed attention to Version K on page 4,
line 12, which read:
If the commission recommends that a nominated water be
designated as outstanding national resource water, the
governor shall prepare and submit a bill consistent
with the recommendation of the commission.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether a nominator would have
justification for a lawsuit should the governor not submit a
bill to the legislature.
MS. MARX opined it is the duty of the executive branch to
execute the law passed by the legislature, therefore, a person
could sue, although she did not cite supporting case law. In
further response to Representative Tuck, she said were a
governor to delay action, the duties of the executive branch
would flow through to the next administration.
2:40:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS directed attention to Version K on page
3, lines 11-13, which read [in part]:
(2) determine, by an affirmative vote of a majority of
the members of the commission, whether a nomination
meets the requirements established under (1) of this
subsection;
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether [paragraph (2)] may warrant
an appeal by a nominator because the commission's decision would
stop or advance a nomination.
MS. MARX remarked:
I think this is enough of a grey area that I do not
know if a court would find that decision - either
saying a nomination is complete, or a nomination is
not complete - a final agency action. I think if you,
if the legislature, as a matter of policy, says "We
don't want it to be a final agency action" a court may
give deference to that. ... A court can always
decide if the, if the agency [acts] arbitrarily,
capriciously, or didn't follow its own laws, a person
could sue and say, "Listen, they didn't even follow
their own statute ... make them at least follow, due
process requires you [to] follow them, follow the law
...."
MS. MARX cautioned the finding is an unknown due to the unique
process of the commission, which is to vote on whether a
nomination by a member of the public is complete, and whether to
forward a nomination.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked Ms. MARX to explain the Alaska
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
2:44:05 PM
MS. MARX said there are hundreds of Rules of Appellate Procedure
that tell the court how to review an agency's decision, such as
how much deference is granted to an agency, and that set out the
procedures and standards for reviewing an agency decision.
CO-CHAIR TARR gave an example of an appeal and asked whether
members of the commission, including members who are
commissioners of departments, would be named parties in a
lawsuit. She suggested individuals may be deterred from service
on the commission.
MS. MARX said generally the parties to an appeal to a decision
by an agency are the party that is appealing and the agency;
individual members of an agency body are not named parties in an
appeal.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP observed the Alaska Judicial Council, Alaska
Court System, determines whether a judicial nomination packet is
complete and votes to forward the nomination to the governor,
and [is a committee that] has garnered litigation. Regarding
[Amendment 11, K.15], he said the amendment changes the nature
of the advisory commission and pointed out the nominator is
already protected from nefarious activity by the commission and
the commission is balanced. He cautioned against prolonging the
designation of a Tier 3 water by an appeal process and said the
amendment also changes the nature of the bill.
2:48:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK opined the original intent of the bill was
to make [the designation of Tier 3 water] more of a scientific
decision and less of a political decision, and he agreed an
appeal through judicial action would provide an opportunity for
a decision based on facts; however, he said he did not want the
commission to be responsible for an absolute decision, and he
could not support the amendment because it would make a change
to the commission and its duties.
2:51:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN withdrew [Amendment 11, K.15].
2:51:52 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR stated Legal Legislative Services was authorized
to make technical and conforming changes during the drafting of
a committee substitute for HB 138.
[HB 138 was held over.]
HB 218-SALT WATER FISHING: OPERATORS/GUIDES
2:52:41 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced the final order of business would be CS
FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 218(FSH),"An Act relating to salt water sport
fishing operators and salt water sport fishing guides; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was
CSHB 218(FSH).]
2:53:11 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G), informed the committee the Sport Fish Business
Owner/Guide License was passed [in the Twenty-third Alaska State
Legislature] and remained in effect through 12/31/14. In the
Twenty-Ninth Alaska State Legislature, salt water licenses were
reinstated with a 2018 sunset and ADF&G seeks to establish the
licenses in statute in perpetuity. License fees are used to pay
for collecting logbook data - which has been collected by ADF&G
from salt water sportfishing businesses and guides since 1998 -
that is critical to upholding the state's obligations to the
Pacific Salmon Treaty and the International Pacific Halibut
Commission. The data is also provided to the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council for the management of federal
fisheries in order to avoid duplicative reporting mechanisms,
which are an undue burden on the charter fishing industry. In
addition, logbook data is utilized by the Board of Fisheries,
ADF&G. The original version of the bill included freshwater and
salt water components; however, due to opposition from
freshwater guides, the freshwater component was removed from the
bill. Thus, [CSHB 218(FSH)] addresses the state's treaty
obligations and the critical need for the collection of salt
water data to manage salt water fisheries, which would be paid
for by the licensing program.
2:56:26 PM
RACHAEL HANKE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, paraphrased from the following
sectional analysis [original punctuation provided]:
Sectional Analysis HB 218:
Salt Water Guide Licensing (version A)
Section 1 Establishes license fees for saltwater
guides and operators.
? Guide license - $200
? Operator license - $400
? Operator and guide combined license - $400
Section 2 Adds new Article to AS 16.40 that
? AS 16.40.262 provides stipulations for the salt
water operator license and defines the license type;
? AS 16.40.272 provides stipulations for the salt
water guides and combined license and defines both
license types;
? AS 16.40.282 establishes reporting requirements
for salt water guides and operators;
? AS 16.40.292 establishes penalties for violations
the chapter; and
? AS 16.40.301 defines "salt water sport fishing
guide" and "salt water sport fishing guide services".
Section 3 Adds salt water sportfishing operator and
guide license to AS 25.27.244(s)(2) which defines
"license".
Section 4 Effective date of January 1, 2021.
CO-CHAIR TARR surmised the effective date is on a calendar year
basis because the bill would not be implemented in the upcoming
season.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG confirmed that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK questioned whether [the licensing program]
was at one time in statute.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG confirmed it was.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired as to the sunset date of the
"logbook statute."
MS. HANKE answered in 2018. In further response to
Representative Hannan, she said ADF&G estimates there are over
800 salt water sportfishing guides, and approximately 600
businesses, and offered to provide the number of freshwater
guides.
[HB 218 was held over.]
3:01:01 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB240 Version A Sponsor Statement 2.28.2020.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Version A 2.07.2020.PDF |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Version A Sectional Summary 2.14.2020.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB240 ATSDR PFAS Information Sheet 02.13.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB240 EPA PFAS Information Sheet 02.13.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB240 Executive Summary - Michigan Report on PFAS Health Effect 02.13.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Testimony as of 3.6.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Draft CS Version M 3.6.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 CSHB24(RES) Version M--Sectional Summary 3.6.2020.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 24 HB 240 |
| HB 240 Explanation of Changes, Ver. A to Ver. M 3.6.2020.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Fiscal Note - DPS-FLS 3.5.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Fiscal Note - DEC-SPAR 3.6.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Fiscal Note - DEC-EH 3.6.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Testimony Received as of 3.8.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| 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 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 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 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment One - Spohnholz 2.13.20.pdf |
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 HRES Amendment Two - Tarr 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Three - Lincoln 2.20.20.pdf |
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 HRES Amendment Four - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
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 HRES Amendment Five - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Six - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Seven - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
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 HRES Amendment Eight - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Nine - Tuck 2.20.20.pdf |
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 HRES Amendment Ten - Spohnholz and Lincoln 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Eleven - Lincoln 2.21.20.pdf |
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 HRES Amendment Twelve - Lincoln 3.3.20.pdf |
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 HRES Amendment Thirteen - Tarr 3.5.30.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Fourteen - Tarr 3.5.20.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Conceptual Amendment Fifteen - Tarr 3.9.30.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Conceptual Amendment Sixteen - Tarr 3.9.20.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 218 Transmittal Letter 1.28.20.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 V. A 1.27.20.PDF |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/20/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Sectional Analysis 1.28.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/6/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Fiscal Note 1.27.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/6/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/20/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Logbook Use Summary 1.28.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/6/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 ADFG Letter of Support 1.28.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/20/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Letter of Support SEAGO 2.12.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/20/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 CS(FSH) Version M 2.21.20.PDF |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 138 DEC Response Letter 2.24.20.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 DEC Response Letter 3.13.20.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |