Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/27/2013 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB27 | |
| SB2 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 27 | ||
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 27, 2013
9:06 a.m.
9:06:37 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Larry Hartig, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation; Ed Fogels, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Natural Resources; Michelle Bonnet Hale, Director, Water
Quality Division, Department of Environmental Conservation;
Senator Cathy Giessel; Deantha Crockett, Executive
Director, Alaska Miners Association; Michael Satre,
Executive Director, Council of Alaska Producers
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Greg Conrad, Executive Director, Interstate Mining Compact
Commission
SUMMARY
SB 2 INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT & COMMISSION
SB 2 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with previously
published fiscal notes: FN1 (DEC), FN2 (DNR), and
FN3 (LAW).
SB 27 REGULATION OF DREDGE AND FILL ACTIVITIES
SB 27 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with previously
published fiscal notes: FN1 (DNR) and FN2 (ADM).
SENATE BILL NO. 27
"An Act establishing authority for the state to
evaluate and seek primacy for administering the
regulatory program for dredge and fill activities
allowed to individual states under federal law and
relating to the authority; and providing for an
effective date."
9:08:09 AM
LARRY HARTIG, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION, (DEC) introduced his support staff. He shared
that in crafting the legislation the department had
considered the most efficient use of time and personnel. He
stated that the department had led the charge at moving the
legislation forward. He noted that seeking primacy was a
significant endeavor. He recognized that the department
wanted to attract experts on regulatory programs which
would limit work with contractors or non-firms. He stressed
that an informed discussion with the federal government
concerning what should be delegated to states would be
necessary in meeting the intent of the legislation.
9:11:49 AM
ED FOGELS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, relayed that in his extensive experience with
permitting activities for large projects he had noted the
importance of the relationship between the state and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). He said that wetlands
permitting had been important to every project. He believed
that state primacy would be beneficial and would give the
state more control over the permitting process. He
highlighted that there was not an economic activity in the
state that did not somehow rely on the wetlands permitting
process.
9:12:51 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough looked to Page 4, line 19 of SB 27:
notwithstanding any other provision of law, take all
actions necessary to receive federal authorization of
a state program for the department and the Department
of Natural Resources to administer and enforce a
dredge and fill permitting program allowed under 33
U.S.C. 1344 (sec. 404, Clean Water Act) and to
implement the program, if authorized
Vice-chair Fairclough wondered if the legislature would
have any recourse for not going forward regardless of the
cost of acquiring the program.
Commissioner Hartig replied that it was important going
forward that federal agencies understand that the intent of
the state was to gain primacy. He stressed that statutes
and regulations, as well as personnel, needed to be in
place before the state applied for primacy. He noted that
the program had to be comparable to federal law, which
meant that the department would need to have the positions
funded in the budget. He said that the request in the
current fiscal note would not be enough to fund the
positions; without the positions the state would not have a
complete application to submit to the federal government.
9:15:29 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough understood that there would be
approximately 50 new, full-time employees to implement the
federal program.
Commissioner Hartig responded that 49 was the number of
people in the regulatory program for the corps. He stated
that he did not believe that the number would increase. He
said they did not expect to get the full program from the
corps due to geographic limitations.
9:16:42 AM
Co-Chair Meyer believed that the state takeover of the
program would expedite the permitting process which had
been one of the biggest frustrations voiced by small
businesses in particular. He noted that the cost of
implementing the legislation would be significant. He
appreciated why the employees were necessary and why they
should be state employees rather than contract employees.
He expressed concern that unfunded liability could raise
with each new position. He asked if the first 5 needed to
be hired immediately, or if the state could hold off on any
of the positions until the next budget cycle.
Commissioner Hartig responded that the 5 positions would be
added to DEC this year, and the next 3 would be added in
two years in FY 15, making a total of 8 new positions I the
department.
9:20:09 AM
MICHELLE BONNET HALE, DIRECTOR, WATER QUALITY DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, spoke to the five
positions in FY 14. She said that one position was a fairly
high level management position because the department
needed someone who understood how to coordinate with EPA
and USACE and the different federal service agencies. She
relayed that there were additional two program development
positions and two capacity building positions. She
elaborated that the program development positions were
necessary to complete the list of tasks necessary to
develop the application that would be submitted to the EPA
for assumption of the program. She explained that the first
task would be to write a program description of how the
program would operate; one of the key components would be
determining which waters and wetlands were subject to USACE
oversight and which would be able to be assumed by the
state. She said that the state would have a lot of work to
figure out the cost and benefits of the program; describing
what the program would look like and how it would operate.
She stated that a contractor would work on a gap analysis
on statutes and regulations and would possibly write
regulations and draft statutes. She reiterated that the
amount of work would be significant and detail oriented.
She furthered that the capacity development track of the
legislation augmented the program development track. She
explained that statewide programmatic general permits were
permits that the USACE could issue, and the state could
cooperate with the corps on the issuance of the permits and
then take over management of the permits. She said that
the people in capacity development positions would work
with the corps to develop statewide programmatic general
permits which the state would implement and then run.
9:24:00 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered about the work/share
agreement between the state and the USACE.
Ms. Hale replied that the work/share program was similar to
the relationship the state had with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). She said that it could involve a
state employee sitting at the corps in order to learn how
to run the program and identify efficiencies, and to assist
the corps with the permit backlog. She asserted that the
collaborative work/share between the corps and the state
would benefit the state in the end.
9:25:56 AM
Senator Olson queried the mining industry's perspective on
the program.
Mr. Fogels responded that his experience with smaller
mining operations revealed a great concern for the future
of the industry.
Senator Olson noted that there were a number of small
mining operations trying to make money in Nome in a short
period of time. He said that the increase in depressed
miners was bordering on a social issue in Nome. He wondered
who would be paying for the extra burden to social
services.
Mr. Fogels said that he had been working closely with the
mayor of Nome to identify solutions to the problems.
9:30:26 AM
Senator Olson said that the city was at the breaking point
of its public safety constraints.
Mr. Fogels said that there was in increased appropriation
in the governor's budget request that would extend the
length of the DNR position in Nome.
9:31:26 AM
Senator Olson opined that the streets in Nome were becoming
populated with vagrants due to the lack of mining activity
after the influx of miners.
Commissioner Hartig interjected that he could not speak to
the social issues in Nome, but he recognized the additional
activity in the area due to gold prices. He stated that
discussions had been held with the mayor of Nome, as well
as the city council, concerning how to maintain order. He
said that the representative from DNR currently in Nome had
experience with law enforcement, and because DNR was a
regulatory agency, was being granted some police authority.
Senator Olson expressed concern that having too many new
people in the community could tax the social and essential
services beyond the community's capabilities.
9:33:53 AM
Co-Chair Kelly expressed support for streamlining the
permitting process. He understood the one of DNR's missions
was to make it so businesses could operate in the state
without the "ridiculous hindrances" that were currently
seen throughout the permitting process. He encouraged the
committee to pass the bill out of committee with the
published fiscal notes.
9:34:51 AM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to REPORT SB 27 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 27 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with previously published fiscal notes:
FN1 (DNR) and FN2 (ADM).
9:36:14 AM
AT EASE
9:38:26 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 2
"An Act enacting the Interstate Mining Compact and
relating to the compact; relating to the Interstate
Mining Commission; and providing for an effective
date."
9:39:01 AM
SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, stated that SB 2 would allow Alaska
to become a full member of the Interstate Mining Compact
Commission (IMCC). She explained that full membership would
give the governor an active vote which would give the state
a broader voice on mining discussions at the national
level. She shared that the IMCC was a coalition of mining
states that join together to represent natural resource
development and environmental protection as it related to
mining. She furthered that there were currently 19 member
states and that Alaska was one of 6 associate member
states. She said that the IMCC recognized the basic
importance of the mining industry and the essential balance
between the country's need for minerals and the protection
of the environment. She noted the various elements of the
compact found in the bill. She spoke to the fiscal note,
and stated that the dues were based on the amount of
minerals that were produced in each state. She pointed out
that the highest dues were paid in West Virginia and that
Alaska could experience annual dues of approximately
$35,000 per year, not including the provisions for travel
to compact meetings. She stated that the membership could
be cancelled at any time.
9:42:06 AM
Senator Hoffman remarked that it was odd that western
states were only associate members.
She explained that the most prolific mining states to date
had been eastern states. She said that all of the associate
western states were in the process of gaining full
membership. She added that Montana was evaluating joining
the compact as well.
9:42:55 AM
Senator Dunleavy remarked that the eastern states with full
membership were huge coal producers.
9:43:12 AM
Co-Chair Meyer wondered why a state would not join. He felt
the cost of joining the IMCC was minimal when compared to
the benefits of membership in the compact.
Senator Giessel responded that she did not know why some
states were not yet full members. She noted that associate
members had lower dues. She shared that some of the
associate members had similar legislation in place to gain
full membership in 2013.
9:44:26 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered when the original compact
was formed.
Senator Giessel replied that the IMCC was formed in April
of 1971.
9:45:53 AM
Senator Bishop wondered if full membership would give the
state more standing against Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) overreach.
ED FOGELS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES responded that full membership would include
voting rights for the state to influence the policy
direction of the compact.
9:47:51 AM
Mr. Fogels stressed that mining was becoming increasingly
important to the state; the state now had 7 operating mines
that were strong economic contributors to the state
economy. He said that the state had a strong regulatory
permitting process and he gave assurances that all of the
active mines had strong environmental records. He shared
that the governor had tasked the department with crafting a
more efficient permitting system. He relayed that work with
federal agencies was a key part of changing the process. He
asserted that the IMCC would foster a better and more
productive relationship with the federal government. He
reiterated the benefits of joining the compact. He offered
the example of IMCC pushback against the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) concerning hard rock mining bonding
efforts. He shared that he was the governor's current
designee to IMCC and he believed that full membership would
put the state in a stronger position.
9:51:33 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough queried the travel line in the fiscal
note of $20,000.
Mr. Fogels responded that a key component to membership in
the IMCC was attending meetings which required travel to
various locations. He noted that travel expenses for
associate membership had been covered in departmental
budget to this point. He felt that it was important to show
a commitment that in the long-term the state would be
represented at all meetings.
9:52:50 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough if DNR had expended all the money
that was currently assigned for travel in the department's
budget.
Mr. Fogels referred the question to another staff member
within the department.
9:53:14 AM
Senator Dunleavy understood that Alaska had more coal than
any other state in the country.
Mr. Fogels replied in the affirmative.
9:54:27 AM
DEANTHA CROCKETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MINERS
ASSOCIATION, (AMA) testified in support of SB 2. She said
that it was increasingly difficult for mineral development
to happen under federal constraints. She believed that
having regulators engaged with IMCC would give the
association a better understanding of how to communicate
with federal agencies. She felt that full membership would
give Alaska greater access to expertise in the mining
field. She said that miners in the state were having a lot
of trouble with MSHA issues and oversight and that the IMCC
had been helpful.
9:57:51 AM
MICHAEL SATRE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL OF ALASKA
PRODUCERS, spoke in support of SB 2. He said that the state
should join as a full member in order to ensure a smooth
permitting process and to join with other states in
fighting against federal overreach. He said that the
council believed that the state was a leader in permitting
of all resources. He believed that the state's process was
rigorous, science based, transparent and predictable. He
felt that the state needed to go out and benchmark
permitting procedures with other states. He concluded that
a combined voice was always better than a single voice.
10:00:57 AM
GREG CONRAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT
COMMISSION (via teleconference), testified in support of SB
2. He stated that Alaska had joined the IMCC as an
associate member in 2006. He said that the legislative and
regulatory climate on the federal level highlighted the
importance for the state to maintain a strong voice. He
pointed out that IMCC was recognized and respected in
Washington D.C. as an expert on mining issues. He said that
the act of participation and commitment of the full members
carried the organization forward in terms of support and
leadership. He relayed that full membership would put the
state in a position that would be favorable for resource
development. He stated that the state's full membership
would be recognized by those who worked with the compact on
a regular basis and would bring about a greater degree of
recognition and influence regarding Alaska's participation
in the compact.
10:05:43 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered what the dues were for the
associate membership.
Mr. Conrad replied that Alaska's associate member dues were
$15,000 annually.
10:07:03 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough queried the number of times the IMCC
met each year.
Mr. Conrad replied that there were two formal meetings per
year, with the possibility of other meetings.
10:07:43 AM
Senator Hoffman wondered whether other states had
considered joining the associate member status.
Mr. Conrad replied that Montana, Arizona, and Idaho were
considering associate membership.
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony.
10:09:42 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough MOVED to REPORT SB 2 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 2 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with previously published fiscal notes:
FN1 (DEC), FN2 (DNR), and FN3 (LAW).
ADJOURNMENT
10:10:40 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 2 - IMCC Annual Report 2011.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 2 |
| SB 2 - IMCC Dues Assessments 2014 and 2015.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 2 |
| SB 2 - IMCC Membership 2013.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 2 |
| SB 2 - IMCC Welcome.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 2 |
| SB 2 - Letter of Support AMA.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 2 |
| SB 2 - Letter of Support CAP.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 2 |
| SB 2 - Letter of Support Mr. Steffy.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 2 |
| SB 2 - Letter of Support RDC.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 2 |
| SB 2 - List of Testifiers.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 2 |
| SB 2 - Sectional.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 2 |
| SB 2 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 2 |
| SB 2 - IMCC Testimony on AK SB 2 Senate Finance.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 2 |