Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/19/1997 05:13 PM House RLS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RULES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 19, 1997
5:13 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Bill Williams
Representative Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Brian Porter
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Relating to supporting the "American Land Sovereignty Protection
Act."
- MOVED CSHJR 14(RLS) FORWARD FOR CALENDARING
HOUSE BILL NO. 51
"An Act relating to the Department of Environmental Conservation."
- MOVED CSHB 51(RLS) FORWARD FOR CALENDARING
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 14
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORT AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY ACT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES, Barnes, Hodgins, Sanders,
Masek, Martin, Kemplen, Phillips, Cowdery, Vezey, Ryan,
Porter, Ogan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/21/97 111 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/21/97 111 (H) WTR, STATE AFFAIRS
01/22/97 125 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PORTER, OGAN
02/13/97 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/13/97 (H) MINUTE(WTR)
02/17/97 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/17/97 (H) MINUTE(WTR)
02/18/97 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/18/97 (H) MINUTE(WTR)
02/19/97 397 (H) WTR RPT 5DP 1NR
02/19/97 397 (H) DP: PHILLIPS, COWDERY, KOTT, BARNES
02/19/97 397 (H) AUSTERMAN
02/19/97 397 (H) NR: KUBINA
02/19/97 398 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H. WTR)
03/13/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/13/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/97 661 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 4DP 1NR
03/14/97 662 (H) DP: JAMES, HODGINS, DYSON, VEZEY
03/14/97 662 (H) NR: IVAN
03/14/97 662 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H.WTR) 2/19/97
03/14/97 662 (H) REFERRED TO RULES
03/19/97 (H) RLS AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 51
SHORT TITLE: REGULATIONS OF DEPT OF ENV. CONSERVATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROKEBERG, KELLY, Foster, Hodgins,
Vezey, Bunde Cowdery, Mulder, Kohring, Williams
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 41 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/97
01/13/97 41 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 41 (H) OIL & GAS, FINANCE
01/22/97 125 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER
01/23/97 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
01/23/97 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
01/30/97 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
01/30/97 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
01/31/97 188 (H) O&G RPT CS(O&G) 3DP 1DNP 2NR
01/31/97 189 (H) DP: BUNDE, HODGINS, ROKEBERG
01/31/97 189 (H) DNP: KEMPLEN
01/31/97 189 (H) NR: OGAN, RYAN
01/31/97 189 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (DEC, F&G)
01/31/97 205 (H) ADD RESOURCES REF FLD Y12 N25 E2 A1
02/13/97 348 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HODGINS, VEZEY, BUNDE
02/13/97 348 (H) COWDERY, MULDER, KOHRING
02/17/97 376 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WILLIAMS
02/18/97 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/18/97 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/20/97 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/20/97 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/26/97 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/26/97 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/27/97 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/27/97 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/05/97 536 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) 7DP 1NR 2AM
03/05/97 537 (H) DP: THERRIAULT, FOSTER, MULDER, MARTIN
03/05/97 537 (H) KOHRING, KELLY, DAVIS
03/05/97 537 (H) NR: MOSES
03/05/97 537 (H) AM: DAVIES, GRUSSENDORF
03/05/97 537 (H) FISCAL NOTES (F&G, DEC)
03/05/97 537 (H) REFERRED TO RLS
03/12/97 647 (H) RULES FOR CALENDARING ADDED
03/17/97 (H) RLS AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 102
03/17/97 (H) MINUTE(RLS)
03/19/97 (H) RLS AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
MYRNA MCGHIE, Legislative Administrative
Assistant to Representative Jeannette James
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave sponsor statement for HJR 14.
PAUL WEIR
Box 455
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
Telephone: (907) 822-3902
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 14.
JON BREIVOGEL
HC 60, Box 106
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
Telephone: (907) 822-5870
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 14.
DENNY WEATHERS
Box 1791
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-3745
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 14.
ERIC WEATHERS
Box 1791
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-3745
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 14.
PATRICK DALTON
P.O. Box 1413
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 14.
LEONARD EFTA
P.O. Box 353
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-1670
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 14.
SUSAN ROSS
Box 198
Kasilof, Alaska 99610
Telephone: (907) 262-5479
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 14.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2040
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 51.
JANICE ADAIR, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-7644
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against CSHB 51(RLS).
DENNIS RANDA, Chairman
Alaska Council of Trout, Unlimited
Box 3055
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-9494
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 51.
SUSAN SCHRADER, Executive Director
Alaska Environmental Lobby, Incorporated
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in against CSHB 51(RLS).
KATHY HANSEN, Executive Director
United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters Association
5875 Glacier Highway, Lot 21
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-5860
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 51.
NANCY HILLSTRAND
Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries
P.O. Box 170
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-3877
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 51.
IRENE ALEXICOS
Alaska Clean Water Alliance
Address and telephone number was
not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 51.
SHIRLEY ARMSTRONG, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Rokeberg
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4954
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 51.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-9, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Rules Standing Committee to
order at 5:13 p.m.. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Kott, Phillips, Williams and Elton. Representative
Vezey arrived at 5:19 p.m. Representatives Nicholia and Porter
were absent.
HJR 14 - SUPPORT AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY ACT
Number 010
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business would be HJR
14, Relating to supporting the "American Land Sovereignty
Protection Act." He noted there was a proposed committee
substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS made a motion to adopt CSHJR 14(RLS).
Hearing no objection, CSHJR 14(RLS) was adopted.
MYRNA MCGHIE, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Jeannette James, Alaska State Legislature, came
forward to explain the committee substitute. She informed the
committee there was a constituent who had concern that there would
be the perception that this resolution would give the federal
government control over lands in Alaska. She said they wanted to
make a change on page 3, line 3, to read "elected representatives
of the people over federally owned land of the United States." The
word "land" would be deleted and "federally owned lands" would be
inserted.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the change is from "land" to "lands."
MS. MCGHIE said somebody inserted "the land." That should be
deleted and "federally owned lands" should be inserted and not
"federally owned land." She said she doesn't really think it
matters whether it is "lands" or "land."
Number 174
CHAIRMAN KOTT said as he understands the change from the previous
version of the bill the term "federally" was included. It wasn't
in the State Affairs Committee version. He also noted it was not
in the B Version of the bill. Chairman Kott said he doesn't have
a problem with making the word land plural. He asked if somebody
wanted to make a motion to amend.
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said he wasn't going to make a motion. He
noted as a former editor, he believes the word "land" is correct.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he tends to agree with Representative Elton. He
asked Ms. McGhie what the resolution does.
MS. MCGHIE explained the resolution is to support HR 901, which
Congressman Young introduced in the 105th Congress, to protect the
sovereignty of American lands, the American Land Sovereignty
Protection Act. There had been a concern that there would be
international interference in making decisions on domestic lands.
Number 397
PAUL WEIR testified via teleconference from Glennallen. He told
the committee he supported Representative James' bill.
Number 435
JON BREIVOGEL testified via teleconference from Glennallen. He
said even though he agrees with the initiative and the idea, we
need to be careful that we don't admit that we don't have
sovereignty by this bill and imply that we need something else
besides our constitution to own our own land. Mr. Breivogel said
he would like people to consider that because basically what were
saying is we don't currently have the protection in existence to
maintain sovereignty over our own land.
Number 515
DENNY WEATHERS testified via teleconference from Cordova. She said
she appreciates the committee hearing, but she finds that HJR 14 is
unnecessary and unconstitutional according to the United States
Constitution. Ms. Weathers referred to Article 1, Section 8, "The
Congress shall have the power 1 through 18." In subsection 17, it
defines what areas the United States has power over. She said, "To
exercise exclusive legislation over districts, such as the District
of Columbia or territories, and the lands ceded to the United
States by particular states such as the erection of forts,
magazines, arsenals, our dockyards and other needful buildings,
please note that nowhere in Article 1 does it give the President of
(indisc.), the President has power."
MS. WEATHERS continued, "Article 2, Executive powers. Section 1,
subsection 7, `Before entering into office, the President had to
take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of
the United States.' This he has not done and the Alaska state
legislature should be asking for his impeachment."
MS. WEATHERS said, "Article 2, Executive powers, Section 2,
subsection 2, `The President shall have the power, by and with the
advice and consent of Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds
of the senators present concur.'" She said the President, to the
best of her knowledge, did not have the Senate's consent. She said
it is the legislature's duty to request his impeachment.
MS. WEATHERS informed the committee the President's powers for
Congress are limited to vetoing laws, he may call special sessions,
send Congress messages through the Union Address or a party leader,
and he may suggest legislation. His judiciary powers are also
limited to nominating judges and he is also allowed to pardon and
give reprieves for federal offenses only. That is why Article 4,
section 4, was included in the Constitution guaranteeing every
state in the union a Republican form of government. She said this
is the check and balance system, we do not have a dictatorship.
MS. WEATHERS explained Amendment 10 reinforces the above stated
articles. The powers not delegated to the United States by the
constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to
the states, respectively, or to the people. The state's rights are
protected and the state legislature is charged with a duty to
uphold our rights.
MS. WEATHERS said some findings have been found. Other than these
specifically delegated powers, the Congress has absolutely no power
of the citizens of the 50 states. It may not assume powers not
specifically granted to it by the people. She said these powers
were delegated only to Congress and not to the Executive Branch of
the United States.
Number 718
MS. WEATHERS said Title 18 is the United States Code. Section 7
specifies that the territory jurisdiction of the United States
extends only outside the boundaries of lands belonging to the
United States.
MS. WEATHERS said she would like the committee to check into U.S.
v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222, which reads, "There is a canon of
legislation construction which teaches Congress that unless a
contrary intent appears, legislation is meant to apply only within
the territory jurisdiction of the United States." She asked
Chairman Kott to please provide her with the document granting
federal jurisdiction inside the boundaries of the state of Alaska.
She said the documents can be sent through the Cordova Legislative
Information Office.
MS. WEATHERS asked the committee to remember that any laws,
statutes, regulations or (indisc.) that is not granted by the
Constitution is null and void. She said, "As stated in 1992 by the
supreme court decision New York v. United States, Supreme Court
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated, `Congress exercises its
confirmed powers subject to the limitation contained in the
Constitution. If a state ratifies or gives consent to any
authority which is not specifically granted by the Constitution of
the United States, it is null and void.' State officials cannot
consent to enlargement of the power that Congress (indisc.)
enumerated in the Constitution, and this was based on a supreme
court decision." She thanked the committee for being concerned
about the issues.
Number 881
ERIC WEATHERS was next to testify via teleconference. He said he
doesn't believe a resolution is needed. Under the Constitution,
not even Congress has the right to make treaties with foreign
nations or the United Nations pertaining to the land within the
United States. If they do, they must be impeached or removed from
the country. Mr. Weathers said the people have no reason or
obligation to recognize any foreign agreements or treaties made
within the United States. He thanked the committee for listening
to him.
Number 924
PATRICK DALTON testified via teleconference from Delta Junction.
He asked what is going on in our country today if we have to make
laws that guarantee us rights which are already guaranteed within
the Constitution. World government seems to be gobbling up state
land through (indisc.) agreements and environmental legislation.
Mr. Dalton said these things are clearly unconstitutional. He
stated the legislature needs to be adamant about this and not only
on HJR 14, but also other areas where we're losing our
constitutional rights.
Number 1011
LEONARD EFTA was next to testify, via teleconference, from Kenai in
opposition to HJR 14. Mr. Efta said the American Land Sovereignty
Protection Act is not necessary. If the U.S. Senate ratified a
treaty that has given foreign power control over any part of this
country, then that treaty should be null and void. The legislature
should see that it is cancelled. He thanked the committee for
listening to his testimony.
Number 1050
SUSAN ROSS testified via teleconference. She said she agrees with
Mr. Efta's testimony. The Constitution stands on its own. She
said she doesn't see where HJR 14 is going to add or detract from
that. All it needs to do is be enforced, be acknowledged and
people need to stand firm behind their (indisc.) through the
Constitution, whether they're a federal, state or local elected
officials. She said the resolution does add credibility to the
discussion that in fact we are pressured sometimes by the federal
documents that does (indisc.) our sovereignty. She thanked the
committee for allowing her to testify.
Number 1107
CHAIRMAN KOTT closed the public hearing.
Number 1121
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said she believes there is a great need for
HJR 14 and said she would urge the members of the House to support
it. Part of her concern on the issue stems from the national
meetings that she has attended with the Western States Coalition,
the Energy Council and several other national groups of legislative
bodies that are very very concerned over the action taken at the
Rio Conference on this biosphere reserve issue, whereby the Rio
Conference adopted a policy that would supersede the constitutions
of every nation where these biosphere lands would be set aside.
She said she is pleased that Congressman Young introduced the
resolution. It is very important for us, as the state of Alaska,
to back up his position on this and say that at no point in time
can any nation be subject to an international treaty without the
explicit agreement and permission of Congress and the legislative
body of that nation.
Number 1211
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he agrees with Representative Phillips. He said
he believes Congressman Young's HR 901 goes a long ways to
facilitate discussion as to whether or not the chief executive can
enter into a treaty without the Senate ratifying it. There seems
to be some appearance that oftentimes he is able to circumvent the
entire congressional senatorial process by virtual use of executive
agreements. Chairman Kott said what is being done with HJR 14 is
supporting Congressman Young and his efforts to ensure that that
particular right remains with Congress.
Number 1260
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS moved and asked unanimous consent to
move CSHJR 14(RLS) forward for calendaring, with individual
recommendations and a zero fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vezey, Phillips,
Williams and Kott voted in favor of the motion. Representative
Elton voted against the motion.
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced CSHJR 14(RLS) moved forward for
calendaring.
HB 51 - REGULATIONS OF DEPT OF ENV. CONSERVATION
Number 1316
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would address HB 51, "An Act
relating to the Department of Environmental Conservation."
Number 1326
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, sponsor of HB 51, came before the
committee. He explained HB 51 was introduced because there needs
to be a different way of proposing regulations in the state,
particularly as they relate to the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC). He said he believes we need some different
points of view represented. Regulations should be based on sound
science and they need to be technologically feasible. He stated he
believes that all department should start out with a cost benefit
analysis of the regulations they promulgate in Alaska.
Representative Rokeberg said he is concerned that sometimes when
the DEC provides regulations that are more strict than required by
the federal government that they are not really cost effective and
really don't provide significant risk reductions when they're
implemented. The idea of zero tolerance, as a policy in this
state, is an ideal and merely an ideal. Many times the department
is endeavoring to do that.
Number 1394
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the bill requires the department to
look at their existing regulations inside a federally mandated
period of time, come up with any revisions that make it more strict
and then justify those regulations based on sound science and
technology. He said we need to review the whole regulatory scheme
because of unreasonable delays in permitting for all types of
industries that use the waters of our state. Representative
Rokeberg said the Red Dog Mine recently received a permit for half
of a request that was made in 1983. It was a request for a mixing
zone. They were granted relief for a partial mixing zone on March
28, 1997. He pointed out it took 14 years to receive a partial
permit. Representative Rokeberg said things can be done better in
terms of the government reacting to the needs of the people of the
state of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that there are a lot of technical
things and it is also symbolic in terms of the message that it
would send to the industry and the people who created jobs in this
state that Alaska is open for business. He said he would point out
that there is nothing in the bill that is intended to or will
negatively impact the environment. This merely asks that the DEC
review some standards that may exist that are more stringent than
federal requirements and then asks them to justify those in terms
of consideration of economic factors as well as a scientific and
technological feasibility of those particular regulations. It does
something that is basically common sense. Representative Rokeberg
said, "Any accusations that this bill is going to spoil the
environment are just complete poppycock."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained the bill and the proposed
committee substitute does make an addition by joining together HB
51 and HB 71, which is an act relating to drinking water,
introduced by the Administration. He said we need to expedite the
passage of the bill as it will save time, money and the effort of
staff.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the committee members' bill files
includes CSHB 51, Version C, dated 3/13/97. He said he now would
like to present Version J, dated 3/19/97. Representative Rokeberg
urged the committee to adopt Version J.
Number 1573
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made a motion to adopt CSHB 51, Version J.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, CSHB
51, Version J, was before the committee.
Number 1645
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained the reason there is Version J is
because after a very lengthy period of time, he was pleased that
the Alaska Miners Association was able to provide some recommended
amendments to the bill after a long and lengthy review by that
group. He noted the bill has been heard many times.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed the committee that on page 1 there
is a title change. There was some concern about the specificity,
so he requested that the original title be included which is, "An
Act relating to the Department of Environmental Conservation."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 2 of Version C and page 3,
line 1, of Version J and said there is a new definition of "natural
conditions," presented by the Alaska Miners Association. He
referred to line 1 of the J Version and read, "In this section,
`natural condition' means the baseline water quality when the
baseline data is obtainable unless the baseline water quality has
been altered by historical or upslope activity. If the baseline
date is not obtainable or if the baseline water quality has been
altered by historical or upslope activity, then `natural condition'
has the meaning given to `background condition' in AS 46.03.088."
Number 1743
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 3, line 10 of the J
Version after the word "the" added was the words "minimum
standards" for clarification and consistency. He also referred to
page 3, line 13 and said after "or" the word "natural" was added.
On line 18 "background or natural condition" has been added. He
read from line 24, "standards or other regulations or regulations."
He said, "`standards, criteria or regulations' down on 29 and then
30, `criteria and regulations'." Representative said those are
suggestions that were reviewed and made by Representative Davies in
the House Finance Committee.
Number 1822
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked for clarification regarding lines 28 to 30.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "Right, there are various words
there, `criteria and other regulations' were added on lines 28,
29..."
CHAIRMAN KOTT said that was in the previous C Version.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked that copies of Version J be made
available to the public as the committee members may be the only
people in the room who have that version.
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated Version J would be made available right
away.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he has misinformation as to the
wording that was included in Versions C and J. He noted that the
bill was received just before the meeting began and apologized that
it hadn't been circulated.
Number 1889
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 4, line 22, after "water
quality standard or" the words "permit limit" were added, and the
words "discharge standard" were deleted. He said on line 23, the
words "standard criteria or regulation" were added and the words
"discharge standard" were removed. Representative Rokeberg
referred to line 25 and said the words "standard, criteria or
regulation" were added. On line 26 of Version J and line 25 of
Version C, before the word "substantially" the word "not" was
deleted.
Number 2135
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 5 of Version C and Version
J and said in subparagraph (3)(A) on line 6 of Version J and line
5 of Version C, the word "or" was changed back to "and." On line
11 of Version J, "or" was changed back to "and." He referred to
Version J, line 24, and said subsection (2) was added which reads,
"`natural condition' means a physical , chemical, biological, or
radiological condition existing in a waterbody before human,
industrial, or commercial use caused an influence on, a discharge
to, or addition of material to the water known at the time of
enactment of federal law known as the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972." Representative Rokeberg said the
this was reviewed by the Miners Association and the Resource
Development Council (RDC). He said they need to have a baseline
date as to where this particular provision started for
implementation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said when reviewing the Miner Association's
recommended amendments, he wanted to talk to other groups of people
that were involved in developing the bill. He indicated he wasn't
able to talk to them before the CS was developed, so there are some
proposed amendments.
Number 2043
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would like to offer Amendment C.3,
dated 3/19/97. He noted the amendment was drafted to Version C.
In Version J, it would be inserted following line 20. It adopts a
mixing zone standard regulation in the statutes of the state of
Alaska. The amendment read as follows:
Page 3, following line 20:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) In adopting mixing zone regulations under (a)(5) of
this section and to ensure that a mixing zone is as small as
practicable, the department shall limit the maximum size of
a mixing zone, unless available evidence reasonably
demonstrates that a larger mixing zone will adequately
protect human health and the environment outside the mixing
zone, as follows:
(1) for estuarine and marine waters, measured at mean lower
low water,
(A) the cumulative lineal length of all mixing zones
intersected on any given cross section of an estuary,
inlet, cove, channel, or other marine waterway may not
exceed 10 percent of the total length of that cross
section; and
(B) the horizontal area allocated to mixing zones may not
exceed 10 percent of the surface area;
(2) for lakes, the total horizontal area allocated to all
mixing zones may not exceed 10 percent of the lake's
surface area and;
(3) for streams, rivers, or other flowing fresh waters, the
length of a mixing zone may not extend beyond the location
describe in (A) or (B) of this paragraph, whichever is
close to the point of discharge:
(A) the location that is two time s the distance of the
computed point of complete mixing, as determined using
a standard river flow mixing model accepted by the
department; or
(B) the location where available evidence reasonably
demonstrates that a public health hazard would occur."
Renumber the following subsections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to Amendment C.2, dated 3/19/97,
Lauterbach, and said it is some housekeeping. He stated it starts
on line 9 through 15.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said it should be place on page 5, after
line 23 and not line 21.
Number 2258
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a brief at-ease at 5:55 p.m. The meeting
was called back to order at 5:57.
Number 2263
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON explained that the spokesperson for the DEC
needs to catch an airplane in ten minutes. He asked if the
committee could hear from her before she has to leave.
Number 2288
JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, came before the committee
to give her testimony. She stated the department hasn't reviewed
either the C Version or the J Version as she had just received
them. Ms. Adair stated the department does maintain its objection
to the legislation even with the administrative penalty section.
She said she appreciates the acknowledgement of the importance of
the bill. She said "The administrative penalty section, the need
to have that to retain drinking water primacy and the federal
construction funds that are associated with that, but that doesn't
remove our concerns and our objections to the other parts of the
root of House Bill 51. And until we have an opportunity to look at
the J Version, or however that may be amended further by this
committee, I can't give you specifics, but we will certainly follow
up with those."
Number 2341
CHAIRMAN KOTT said it is his understanding that a major segment of
Version J includes what would be construed as a major portion of HB
71. He said it is his understanding that all that does is
establish primacy in the state, perspective by virtue of
establishing some penalties and procedures to remedy any question
area.
MS. ADAIR explained when Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water
Act last year, it was signed in August, 1996, they amended the
requirements for primacy of the drinking water program to include
administrative penalty authority. They set the administrative
penalty authority at $1,000 a day for systems that serve 10,000 or
more a day. They then left to the states the ability to establish
the amount for systems that serve below that number as long as it
is sufficient to assure compliance. She explained this is an
additional activity the department has to undertake and they have
to have additional authority to retain primacy for drinking water.
She noted it is a program for which they already do enjoy primacy.
In addition, in the Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization,
Congress tied together primacy in the drinking water program to
access federal construction funds from a newly created fund made
last year called the state revolving loan fund. Ms. Adair
explained Alaska's share of that state revolving loan fund for FY
98 is just under $27 million. She noted that amount shows up in
capital budget, front section appropriation, federal funds.
Number 2408
CHAIRMAN KOTT said it is his understanding that Congress
establishes the administrative penalty for those systems that
service a population of 10,000 or more and leaves up to the state
the penalty for those populations of under 10,000.
MS. ADAIR noted the department sets the dollar amount and proposes
to cap that. She said, "What we've done in here is we've adopted
the federal minimum, their $1,000 a day is actually minimum, but
we've adopted that as our maximum. And then we've proposed for
systems that serve less than 10,000 people that we have a penalty
no more than $750. And what we envision is having a regulatory
process that would create a scale, either by system or by perhaps
type of penalty. I'm not really sure. It's something we want to
work with the system operators to figure out the best way to both
meet the requirement of Congress and EPA (Environmental Protection
Agency) and their concerns as well."
Number 2449
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Adair if she knows how many systems are in
the state that service less than 10,000.
MS. ADAIR said we only have six systems that serve more than
10,000, so it's the bulk of the systems that would have the lower
penalty.
Number 2459
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "One thing when we were reviewing the
legislation, I'm curious to get your opinion on whether or not any
funds in this state fiscal year would be in jeopardy or the
enactment of this as it relates to the federal fiscal year. Could
you explain that?"
TAPE 97-9, SIDE B
Number 001
MS. ADAIR responded, "...effective date on House Bill 71. It says
basically that the bill doesn't take effect until EPA tells us we
have to have the authority because they haven't told us yet when we
have to have that administrative penalty authority."
Number 025
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Rokeberg to review the last
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to Amendment C.2, Lauterbach,
3/19/97, and said it would delete lines 1 through 8 entirely. On
line 9, add page 5 line 29. He said, "Amending little (3),
drinking water means a body of water, et cetera, and little (4)
industrial use."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if he meant 23 and not line 29.
CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out the committee is on definitonal sections.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said it is line 23.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "It should be 3 and 4 under that, so
I think should be 28, not 29."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG repeated the amendment, "Page 5, line 28,
following `1972' then little (3) and little (4)."
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the amendment should be labeled Amendment 2.
The previous amendment should be labeled Amendment 1 for tracking
purposes.
Number 128
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to Amendment 1 and said it defines
"mixing zone" and it is being defined by horizontal areas, lakes
and cumulative lengths. He asked where the definitions came from.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said in the body of regulations, in law,
revolving around water quality standards there are a number of
different definitions of what a mixing zone is. The mixing zone
definition in the amendment is a compilation of an agreement put
together by the Alaska Miners Association and has been reviewed by
the RDC. Representative Rokeberg said he hasn't had a chance to
compare it to a bill that was formally known, before a sponsor
substitute, as HB 128, which had a similar provision in terms of
defining "mixing zone." He said the necessity of having mixing
zones in the state of Alaska is because they already exist.
Representative Rokeberg said it took 14 years for the department to
try and figure out what a partial mixing zone was for a project
that has been underway for a longer period of time than that.
Number 249
DENNIS RANDA, Chairman, Alaska Council of Trout, Unlimited,
testified via teleconference on HB 51. He informed the committee
that water quality is their number one priority nationwide. He
indicated he doesn't have a copy of either Version C or Version J,
but does have a copy of the Finance Committee version. Mr. Randa
said the council recognizes the need for (indisc.), but not
unreasonable conditions such as turbidity. He said we have all
heard about turbidity standards interfering with business practices
and the ability to conduct operations within the limits. Those
should be approached in a reasonable manner and he doesn't believe
that HB 51 does that. Mr. Randa said we need to work with the
agency to develop a cooperative attitude, regardless of
disagreements between the permit applicant and the agency when
trying to work through, at times, very difficult standards. Mr.
Randa said he believes that Alaskans should set our own water
standards and not just move to the lowest acceptable standards by
the EPA. He said he would like to maintain public involvement and
not diminish it. The bill attempts to diminish it. Alaskans
should set our own water standards and not at the lowest acceptable
standards. He said Alaskans like to think that we are a little
different up here and maybe a little better sometimes. Mr. Randa
said he has worked with mixing zones and he doesn't believe that
there is "the end all to be all." He referred to putting mixing
zones in statute and said they are already there, we already use
them. If we put them in statute, what happens if a better method
comes along. Mr. Randa said he has personally gone out and done
work on the Kenai River and is currently involved in that to try to
understand water quality issues and impacts. He stated he doesn't
get paid to do this work and to have Representative Rokeberg, who
appears to insult his involvement at every opportunity, bothers
him. Mr. Randa said, "And I would really like to address that. It
just doesn't seem to be in the spirit of trying to develop the best
possible Alaska for our children that these types of statements
such as `poppycock,' referring to my involvement and demeaning my
involvement, is at all necessary." Business decisions are
economically driven by definition and resource protection must be
afforded priority to public process. The public's trust is
paramount and he believes that HB 51 violates that trust. Mr.
Randa thanked the committee for listening to him.
Number 440
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he thinks everyone in attendance believes that
water and air quality are of the utmost importance and that we do
hold higher standards than the rest of the U.S., in many regards.
Many of us not only believe that we a little bit better, but a lot
better in more than one way.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would like to point out to Mr.
Randa that anything he said was not directed to him personally. He
said he appreciates his interest.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Susan Schrader to come forward and present her
testimony. He noted all committee members have a copy of a letter
from Ms. Schrader of the Alaska Environmental Lobby.
Number 643
SUSAN SCHRADER, Executive Director, Alaska Environmental Lobby,
Incorporated, explained the lobby is a coalition of 22 different
conservation groups throughout the state of Alaska with a combined
membership of over 10,000 Alaskans. She said she would like to
echo Mr. Randa's comments. Many of his comments are complimentary
to the Alaska Environmental Lobby's comments. Ms. Schrader said
the only exception she would take with his comments is she thought
Representative Rokeberg's comments, regarding poppycock, were
directed towards the lobby and not towards Mr. Randa. Ms. Schrader
informed the committee she has concerns regarding the public
process. She said people were not afforded the opportunity to see
either Version C, Version J, or any of the amendments until they
had to ask for them. This has been an ongoing concern with the
bill, this year, and there was a similar problem with last year's.
Ms. Schrader said because of that and because there have been some
very significant changes created in the bill by the amendments and
new versions, she would respectfully request that the Rules
Committee hold the bill over so that the department can review the
bill and provide their testimony and so that members of the public
can also review the bill.
Number 660
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Ms. Schrader's letter and said it
indicates that there needs to be an introduction of a definition of
"background condition." That definition is embodied in the working
draft. He asked Ms. Schrader if she has had an opportunity to
analyze that particular definition.
MS. SCHRADER said, "The addition of the version of the bill that we
were referencing, and I don't have it right up here with me, was an
earlier version. But yes, it was the version that had the
definition of `background condition' in it.
Number 670
KATHY HANSEN, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska
Gillnetters Association, came before the committee. She said her
association is in opposition to HB 51. Ms. Hansen said she
realizes she is speaking to the older versions. She said she found
the current conversation very confusing. She would like the DEC to
have a chance to review the new version and comment on it at a
later time. Ms. Hansen said water quality is very critical. She
indicated she moved to Alaska from Washington because she watched
the habitat and water quality degrade to a point where they were
having trouble with their fish runs. To see the legislature tamper
with water quality and habitat issues makes her very nervous. It
is something that once you degrade it to a certain point, you can't
gain it back. It takes so long that by the time headway is made in
cleaning it up, we will have lost our natural resources such as
fishing and things people totally enjoy. Ms. Hansen said the
groups need to work together. She noted Kensington has been
working with the fishing industry. Anything that slows down the
public process or cuts out involvement is detrimental. Ms. Hansen
said her organization opposes HB 51.
Number 768
CHAIRMAN KOTT said if Ms. Hansen opposes the original version,
nothing has been done in the new CS that will change her mind.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he thinks the bill has been improved,
from an overall standpoint, in certain areas and perhaps in other
areas. The mixing zone may generate some controversy, but he
believes that most of the amendments that have been made, in a
large part, will be (indisc.) to the bill. He noted a lot of
amendments have been incorporated in to the bill that were
introduced by the minority members in the House Finance Committee.
Number 804
CHAIRMAN KOTT said Ms. Schrader made the comment that she thought
Representative Rokeberg's comment regarding poppycock was directed
toward the Alaska Environmental Lobby. He said he is sure that
wasn't the case. It is probably something Representative Rokeberg
said in general.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it more generic and people shouldn't
take things personally, particularly in the political realm.
Number 824
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries, testified via
teleconference from Homer. She informed the committee that Pioneer
Alaskan Fisheries is a 35-year old all Alaskan corporation. She
said she agrees, with Mr. Randa's comments and believes there needs
to be more public review. She said her business employees 43
people and their children and grandchildren all rely on the high
quality of water standards that we enjoy in Alaska. All living
organisms are made of over 80 percent water, we are water. Bills
pertaining to water quality are crucial and critical to the quality
of life for all into the future. Ms. Hillstrand said this bill is
a really important bill and she feels that sometimes the
legislature doesn't take it seriously when people ask for clean
water for her industry of fishing and to uphold high quality
standards. Water quality problems are common around the world and
Alaska is deeply gifted with relatively clean water resources. She
asked the heritage not be jeopardized for a nonrenewable extracted
industry. To place these industries above renewable resource
industries which provide jobs well into the future is shortsighted
and have proved to be very very expensive in the long run for our
state. It will cost us more money in the long term to clean up
problems than to have prevented them. Ms. Hillstrand asked the
committee members to remember that the fisheries industry is the
number one employer in the state. It is imperative that we uphold
strict water quality standards for the state of Alaska so as not to
undercut the many industries which rely so deeply on clean clear
water. She thanked the committee for listening to her.
Number 951
CHAIRMAN KOTT said she can assure Ms. Hillstrand that all of us are
intimately involved and are concerned about protecting the pristine
beauty of our state to include not having garbage floating around
in our waters.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he wants to remind people about the
fact that the House Rules Committee is meeting at all is very
unusual. It is not the tradition of the House of Representative of
the State of Alaska to schedule Rules Committee hearings. He said
the meeting was held at his request. Representative Rokeberg said
he was waiting for some amendments to the bill which were received
two days ago and there was no intention of not getting the various
versions and the amendments out for public review. He indicated he
received the new versions of the bill earlier that day.
Number 1042
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to what Representative Rokeberg said about
the committee meeting and said the House Rules Committee seldom
ever has meetings, but it was important to meet on this issue and
take further public input. He said there was no intent, on his
part, not to allow the public complete scrutiny of any of the
versions of the bill.
Number 1145
IRENE ALEXICOS, Alaska Clean Water Alliance, came before the
committee to testify. She said she would like to specifically
address some of Representative Rokeberg's comments in his sponsor
statement. He said the first sentence says, "It's an important
piece of economic development legislation." She said that
contradicts his point that accusations about this bill about
spoiling the environment are complete poppycock. Ms. Alexicos
asked how mixing zones cannot be thought of as spoiling the
environment. Mixing zones are places where pollution is allowed to
occur. You could call them dead zones because anything happening
within that zone in a waterbody may not live. The debate over
water quality often raises the issue of cost versus economic
benefits and the needs versus budgetary reality. Ms. Alexicos said
we can try to identify the economic value of our existing aquatic
resources or get a sense of how much the economy has suffered from
past destruction of these resources. Either way, past investments
in clean water programs have considerable benefits and future
investments are more than justified on economic grounds. She said
not all the values provided by clean water and healthy aquatic
ecosystems can be translated into dollars and cents. Nonetheless,
water resources support tremendously valued parts of our economy.
The elements of any equation designed to calculate the economic
value of water would also have to include the value for drinking,
for irrigation, for industrial use, hydroelectric production,
transportation and enhanced property values.
MS. ALEXICOS said Representative Rokeberg said in his statement
that HB 51 is supported by the 18 member Alaska Oil and Gas
Association, the Resource Development Council, small independent
placer miners, certainly those with some economic benefit to
lowering water quality standards, and multinational corporations.
Ms. Alexicos said she thinks it is key to point out who is opposed
to this, the EPA, the DEC, the Environmental Lobby, the Alaska
Clean Water Alliance and the various fishing groups.
Representative Rokeberg said the basis for this bill is to be sound
science. She said she must point out that few, if any,
epidemiological studies have (indisc.) human populations for the 30
or more years, commonly needed to observe fully effects of exposure
to chemical substances in the environment. The failure to detect
hidden long term effects, stemming from chemical exposure, reflects
a bias that seeks short term answers to complex problems. This
tenancy has particularly severe consequences in the area of public
health regulation where governmental agencies have not studied
blatant effects generated by toxic substances. Ms. Alexicos
continued to discuss how chemicals hurt the environment. She said
the Alliance still strongly opposes the bill and urged that it not
become law.
Number 1427
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated there were no further witnesses to testify
and closed the public hearing. He noted there are two pending
amendments before the committee
Number 1472
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. He stated he has seen the
definition of what a mixing zone should look like defined a couple
of different ways. He said he would like to see how it compares to
the existing methodology that is being used by the department as
they apply it on project-specific sites. Representative Elton said
his concern is that we're adopting a definition of mixing zone that
may not give the department the flexibility that they're now using,
for example, as they work with the Kensington project in Juneau.
He said without that kind of information, he is very uncomfortable
in adopting Amendment 1.
There being no further discussion on Amendment 1, a roll call vote
was taken. Representatives Phillips, Williams and Kott voted in
favor of Amendment 1. Representative Elton voted against Amendment
1. Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1568
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,
3/19/97, Lauterbach, C.2.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. He asked where the definition for
"drinking water" and "industrial use" comes from.
Number 1609
SHIRLEY ARMSTRONG, Legislative Assistant to Representative
Rokeberg, said the drinking water definition is from a DEC
regulation that speaks to water supply and drinking water. She
explained the regulation says that even though it includes drinking
water, that does not mean that the water is safe to drink in its
natural state. Ms. Armstrong said the people she has spoke with
said that if it's going to be drinking water, you ought to be able
to drink it. She explained the term "industrial use" comes from
another DEC regulation. The only thing that is new is the fish
processing. It goes back to a situation when Echo Bay was trying
to get a permit, they were drilling and apparently they used water
on the drills to keep the drill from getting hot rather than using
oil or something similar. Water spilled out on the ground and some
one sued them in that they didn't have a permit to dump that water.
Echo Bay then filed suit to stop everybody else who didn't have a
permit for water.
Number 1747
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if there was a reason that logging isn't
mentioned.
MS. ARMSTRONG said the word development is included. She noted the
definition is the department's definition except for fish
processing.
A roll call vote was taken on the adoption of Amendment 2.
Representative Williams, Phillips and Kott voted in favor of the
adoption of Amendment 2. Representative Elton voted against the
adoption of Amendment 2. Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 1810
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON requested that the bill, as amended, be held
in the Rules Committee before it is scheduled for the floor to
allow a thorough review of the bill. He said he doesn't think HB
71 ever had a hearing. He said he is concerned that if CSHB 51 is
moved out Rules, there is not going to be the kind of scrutiny that
he feels comfortable with. He asked that the bill be held in Rules
for four or five days.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he concurs with Representative Elton that the
major portion of the bill that was amended to include HB 71, which
is the Governor's bill, needs a good thorough review. He indicated
he will wait until the following week before scheduling the bill
for the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a motion to move CSHB 51(RLS), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Phillips, Williams and
Kott voted in favor of the motion. Representative Elton voted
against the motion.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said CSHB 51(RLS), as amended, was moved forward for
calendaring with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Rules Committee meeting at 6:57
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|