Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/18/1998 03:40 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
February 18, 1998
3:40 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford, Chairman
Senator Lyda Green, Vice Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Bert Sharp
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator John Torgerson
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 128(FIN) am
"An Act relating to water quality; directing the Department of
Environmental Conservation to conduct water quality research;
establishing the Water Science Oversight Board; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO.49(RES)
Relating to opposition to a moratorium on the building of roads in
the roadless areas of national forests.
- MOVED SCS CSSSHJR 49(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 204(CRA)
"An Act providing the commissioner of natural resources with the
authority to make grants of state land to municipalities for the
construction and operation of sport and recreational facilities and
structures."
- MOVED CSSB 204(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 213
"An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska Minerals
Commission."
- MOVED SB 213 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 128 - No previous action to consider.
HJR 49 - No previous action to consider.
SB 204 - See Community & Regional Affairs minutes dated 2/9/98.
SB 213 - No previous action to consider.
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Bill Hudson
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 128.
Mr. Michael Conway, Director
Division of Air and Water Quality
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Ave.
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 128.
Mr. Clynt Nauman, President
Alaska Council of Producers
1133 West 15th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 128.
Ms. Charlotte MacCay
Cominco/Red Dog
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 128.
Ms. Peggy Wilcox
P.O. Box 22051
Juneau, AK 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 128.
Ms. Beth Carlson
Sierra Club
19632 Delphin Circle
Eagle River, AK 99577
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 128.
Ms. Patti Saunders, Assistant Director
Alaska Conservation Voice
750 W. 2nd Avenue, #109
Anchorage, AK 99577
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 128.
Mr. Peter Ecklund, Staff
Representative Bill Williams
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Read sponsor statement for HJR 49.
Mr. Mark Stahl, Manager
Lands and Resource Department
Chugach Alaska Corporation
560 E. 34th Ave., #200
Anchorage, AK 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HJR 49.
Mr. Jack Phelps, Executive Director
Alaska Forest Association
111 Stedman, Ste. 200
Ketchikan, AK 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 49.
Ms. Mel Krogseng, Staff
Senator Robin Taylor
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Read sponsor statement for SB 204.
Senator Jim Duncan
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 213.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-11, SIDE A
Number 001
HB 128 - WATER QUALITY; WATER SCIENCE OVERSIGHT BD
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:40 p.m. and announced HB 128 to be up for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he introduced HB 128 to identify a
better way to establish water quality standards in Alaska. It
seeks a scientific fact based understanding of our unique water
bodies and uses, and establishes a mechanism for DEC to form a
partnership with interested parties to seek funding for water
quality research. The goal of the research is to substitute
science and certainty for the emotional political debate that
characterizes water quality regulations in the State. Without
Alaska specific arctic/subarctic research, the federal
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will not accept Alaska
specific changes to our own water quality regulations. The vast
majority of interested parties agree to a concept of forming a
partnership to seek funding for five years of technical research.
The Alaska Science and Technology Foundation, monies direct from
Washington D.C. and Senator Stevens, and industry money are
potential sources of funding. However, they can only accept
application from a public agency if it's in partnership with a
private organization. Federal funds may be sought at a future date
and it's not his intent to request general funds for this research.
He said this is not simply pro-mining legislation; it affects
minerals development, fisheries and processing, municipal out
falls, and any discharge into a body of water in Alaska. This bill
is about the preservation of the image and quality of clear,
pristine waters in Alaska and embodies the concept of multiple use.
The mining industry has said they can support a water standard, if
it is based on science.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that DEC indicated using general fund
monies.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified that he is not asking for general
funds to finance the science. DEC has a need for funds to
establish the partnering, but not for the five years of scientific
basis.
SENATOR TAYLOR offered technical amendments for the dates on page
4, line 18 to change "1997" to "1998;" also on page 4, line 20 to
change "2002" to "2003." There were no objections and the
amendments were adopted.
SENATOR TAYLOR offered another technical amendment on page 3, line
13 where the Board members are compensated for $300 per day. It
would seem more appropriate, if they are compensated at least at
the same rate that legislators received per day which when you
divide the $24,000 salary into 365 days, comes out to a daily rate
of $65.78. So he rounded it off to $66 saying they would still get
per diem on top of that.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he would take that under advisement since he
didn't formally offer the amendment.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if it would be reasonable to limit any one who
is a contractor to the Department as a Board member or would that
eliminate some of the talent they want on that Board.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he would like to think about that and
talk to some people from the mining industry and other industries
he is trying to help.
MR. MIKE CONWAY, Director, Air and Water Quality Division, said
they supported this bill.
MR. CLYNT NAUMAN, President, Council of Alaska Producers, supported
this bill, also. They see water quality at a point where it is
critical to the industry and to the State.
MS. CHARLOTTE MACKAY, Cominco, stated that water criteria for the
State of Alaska is based on criteria adapted from studies conducted
in more temperate areas of the United States. One of the main
inhibitors in getting water quality research is that once the study
is completed, there is no balanced credible audience of appropriate
expertise to evaluate the study's conclusions and there is no
commitment on behalf of the State to apply scientifically supported
recommendations.
HB 128 sets up a Water Quality Board that will provide for the
credible evaluation of water quality research studies to serve the
State as well as convince the EPA. It also provides for a
commitment on behalf of the State to seriously consider the Board's
recommendations. It should be noted that neither the State nor the
industries pursuing this research can predict the outcome of these
studies, but are committed to living with the results of standards
based on sound science. At present, they have initiated studies
through the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation as co-
applicants with DEC and ADF&G to determine the level at which
totally dissolved solids become toxic. Further studies regarding
PH and [indisc] toxicity are anticipated in the future.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he understood that Alaska had one water quality
standard which was for drinking water.
MS. MACKAY responded no; that there are various standards for
protection of aquatic life, industrial uses, etc.
Number 254
MS. PEGGY WILCOX testified on behalf of herself and said there are
a few things that concerned her. Although the legislative intent
is fantastic, she looked at the Water Science Oversight Board which
would be qualified individuals, but political appointees. They
would review a plan put together by DEC and interested parties, and
if you remove DEC, the interested parties who have the education
are probably going to be employed by the industry. Of the three
things they are to examine, the third one is relative costs and
benefits of toxicity testing methods. She was also concerned with
the removal of drinking water (the human element) from the bill, or
making differentiation between water that's going to be coming out
of the outfall of a mine pipe and water that could potentially be
consumed.
She also agreed with Senator Taylor about the $300 fee which would
come out to $12,000 for five members at a minimum of four days.
She thought the $12,000 could be better used in hiring another
scientist.
SENATOR LEMAN asked her to clarify what she meant by removal of the
human element.
MS. WILCOX explained on page 2, lines 9, 11, and 14 talk about
aquatic life criteria, toxicity testing procedures, and relative
costs and benefits of testing methods. This would be what the
Board would be addressing. She thought adding a fourth criteria
regarding the extent toxics are already present and affecting
public health would be useful.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said the intent was to set up as impartial a
board as can possibly be done as an oversight board of scientific
research that will be done by real scientists. Both industry and
the regulators will, then, have a basis on which they can establish
standards on which they can manipulate the water. He didn't think
there was any lack of the human element and there will be testing
of what the water body currently consists of as they start up.
From that they will determine what the effects would be on that
base for various applications.
Number 350
MR. CONWAY commented that the human health criteria is well
documented because human beings are pretty much the same here as
they are in other parts of the country. Human health isn't at
issue, but the kinds of species we find in Alaska and what is their
ability is to respond to things that occur naturally in Alaska that
may not be occurring in other places. He added that any time there
is an operation that goes into place there is a permitting process
which takes these standards and applies them to the situation that
is at hand. There is rigorous criteria to go through to make sure
public health would not be in danger.
MS. WILCOX said the term "cost benefit of toxicity" makes her
cringe.
MR. CONWAY explained that was directed at the methods of getting
the information you need. If you can get it from a field test kit
or something easy like that, why should you have to send samples
potentially out of state and spend thousands of dollars.
MS. WILCOX thanked them for answering her questions.
MS. BETH CARLSON, Sierra Club, said they do not support the bill as
written. She questioned that the Board would be reliable because
of legislative budget cuts and because section 26.03.85(b) allows
the Board to set its own compensation level for partial work days
and such a cost is an unknown factor. This leads to their second
concern. While the legislature finds it is important for the DEC
to conduct adequate research prior to proposing and implementing
water quality regulations and the Department has often had to act
without specific data about the State's water, this proposed
legislation rather than providing additional funding to address
these concerns, places an additional burden or duty on Department
officials by requiring them to seek funds to perform research.
Surely this added duty can only detract from research we all agree
is necessary. She wonders when DEC will come to them to ask for
money since they are involved in water sports, although she doubts
that would happen. It appears that "interested parties" does not
actually include all parties interested in water quality.
Her third concern is the increased bureaucracy it creates. She
agrees that citizen oversight and involvement in government is
important, but they think that such oversight and involvement
already exists through the pubic review and comment process. The
public would be better served by hiring more scientists to work for
the Department in allocating adequate funds for them to perform the
necessary research they all agree is necessary.
MS. CARLSON said also that the Governor is fully qualified for
appointing an oversight board comprised of individuals who satisfy
the requirements in section 46.03.85(a).
MS. PATTI SAUNDERS, Assistant Director, Alaska Conservation Voice,
said they agree with the intent of this bill that the policy of the
State is to protect the quality and uses of the State's water.
They also support the concept of promulgating regulations based on
good research, however the solution proposed in HB 128 is ill-
advised and is not likely to further the goal of protecting
Alaska's water quality and public health. If the problem is that
DEC doesn't have sufficient staff to get enough research to
promulgate toxicity standards, the easiest and best solution is to
give DEC the funds necessary to do the work. Creation of an
oversight board is problematic because empowering the legislature
to appoint board members inappropriately and unnecessarily
politicizes the development of toxicity standards in direct
contravention of the purported purpose of the bill. The
qualifications required for board members all but guarantees that
qualified people with a public interest perspective will be
excluded from the board, while individuals who may be technically
qualified, but are none-the-less employed by industry as staff and
consultants, would undoubtedly fill most of the seats. The Board
research plan is limited to how much toxicity ought to be allowed
in State waters and further is limited to toxic effects on aquatic
life. The bill does not provide for toxicity standards based on
public health considerations, nor does it provide any mechanisms
for dealing with accumulations of toxic material already present in
our environment from past industrial practices. The notion of
using private (industry) money to fund this project goes against
every principal of good government. If good research is so
important to protecting good Alaskan water quality and the public
interest, we ought to be willing to pay for it using public funds.
It would preserve the appearance and reality of unbiased objective
science. This bill will ensure that only the parts that industry
is willing to pay for will move forward.
She concluded that they should adequately fund DEC to do the
research that would help protect the public and the environment.
Number 450
SENATOR LEMAN noted that Ms. Carlson was concerned about the
political issues with the legislature in appointing board members,
but wasn't concerned about the same thing with the Governor. The
legislature is meant to represent the people and is to just suggest
two lists of three names each.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he appreciated the vote of confidence, since he
was intending to change the Governor in the next election.
MS. CARLSON responded that her concern is that this procedure is
substantially different from the normal procedure for the
appointment of boards and she didn't think it was appropriate nor
was there any justification for changing the appointment process.
It also clearly puts control in the hands of the legislature.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if this board would require legislative
confirmation.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD answered that it didn't, because it's not
regulatory; it's quasi-judicial.
SENATOR GREEN added that there were other lists of board members
submitted by the University of Alaska, the Governor, and the
Commissioner or the Commissioner's designee.
MS. CARLSON responded that her concern is with the process and the
extent to which this differs from the normal process for appointing
boards and then confirmation.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if this is a five-year board.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied yes.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he was concerned if it's not their intent to
have a sunset review and this is a temporary board, that should be
clarified.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said the intent is to have a temporary board.
They want to get in, establish the science, establish the
regulations, then be done with it.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if he would object to a sunset date that
would direct a repeal after five years. He said they are already
going to change the date anyway. He said it would have to be after
the Department submits its research.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he would accept an actual sunset at the
end of five full years of research.
Number 529
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said they would hold the bill for further work
before passing it.
HJR 49 - NAT'L FOREST ROAD-BUILDING MORATORIUM
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced HJR 49 to be up for consideration.
MR. PETER ECKLUND, Staff to Representative Williams, sponsor of HJR
49, read the sponsor statement. The Forest Service recently
announced a sweeping two-year moratorium on development of roadless
areas in national forests. Although the announced land freeze
appears to have exempted the Tongass National Forest from the
policy, that is not necessarily the case. The public has 30 days
to comment on this after which the Tongass could be included in the
moratorium. Also, the Chief of the Forest Service, Mr. Mike
Dombeck, has said that the final long-term policy will apply to all
forests.
The resolution speaks to the inappropriate manner in which the
White House is dictating management of our national forests. The
Forest Service has turned the public process upside down by
announcing their policy first, then searching for scientific
evidence to support their position and reaching out for public
participation.
The resolution also speaks to the Tongass Land Management Plan
revised over 10 years and costing $13 million. It would be wrong
to come back later with a unilateral amendment which alters the
balance struck in the plan.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that Mr. Lyle Lundberg of Ketchikan and Mr.
Mark Stahl of Anchorage were ready to testify and asked if anyone
wanted to testify against this resolution. There was no response.
He asked if anyone needed to testify on it before it passed from
this committee. There was no response. He said he would accept a
motion to move it with the concurrence of Mr. Lundberg, Mr. Stahl,
and Mr. Jack Phelps.
MR. MARK STAHL, Manager, Lands and Resources, Chugach Alaska
Corporation, suggested adding a whereas statement dealing with the
Chugach National Forest saying, "Whereas the Chugach National
Forest land management land plan revision was initiated in April of
1997, and this plan revision process is the appropriate venue for
addressing road building and roadless area management issues in the
Chugach National Forest." He suggested putting it between the
fourth and fifth whereas statements.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he thought it would go better after the third
whereas.
TAPE 98-11, SIDE B
SENATOR LEMAN moved to amendment HJR 49 to add "Whereas Chugach
National Forest land management plan revision was initiated in
April 1997 and this plan revision process is the appropriate venue
for changes to the Chugach Land Management Plan (or words to that
effect)." There were no objections and it was so ordered.
MR. JACK PHELPS, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association,
said it was important to recognize that this moratorium will have
a disproportionate effect on Alaska relative to the rest of the
country. He said the process is lousy and a compromise of every
major law that affects national forest management. The effects of
this on Alaska in terms of the allowable cut for timber on our
national forests is more than double that of any other national
forest region in the country.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to pass SCS CSSSHJR 49(RES) from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
SB 204 - STATE LAND FOR MUNICIP. SPORT FACILITIES
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 204 to be up for consideration and
asked for an at-ease for two minutes.
MS. MEL KROGSENG, Staff to Senator Taylor, sponsor, said our youth
are too often left unattended after school, at night, and on
weekends with little to do. Recreational and sports facilities in
communities offer an alternative to crime and other undesirable
activities. SB 204 proposes to give State land to municipalities
for development of sports and recreational facilities. This land
that is granted will not count against the local government
entitlement and make development of these facilities more
economically feasible for the communities. The bill contains a
reversionary provision which prohibits local governments from
selling the land. If they should decide not to use it for that
purpose, it would revert back to the State, but they may trade the
land for other land that might be more suitable in their area than
the available State land.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if Senator Taylor minded taking out the
reversionary clause because it gets complicated when you are trying
to exchange land.
SENATOR TAYLOR answered not at all. He added that the Department
wanted the clause. He thought the land should just be fee simple.
Number 526
SENATOR SHARP asked if this meant that the Fairbanks North Star
Borough could apply for the route of the Yukon Quest if the
Department of Natural Resources would grant that and not be counted
against their land selection.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he wouldn't mind. He didn't intend for there
to be limitations. There are a lot of activities out there. His
community is putting in an archery range.
SENATOR GREEN said it looks like this creates unfair competition to
some individual who might want to create a for-profit facility such
as a hockey rink or tennis facility.
SENATOR TAYLOR answered that wasn't the intent. Most individuals
do not put up soccer or little league fields.
SENATOR GREEN responded they would if they were given free land.
SENATOR TAYLOR said it is set up so that those individuals who have
land that the municipality could better use for that purpose could
receive land in exchange.
Number 495
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if there was any size limitation to the land.
SENATOR TAYLOR said the discretion is left up to the Commissioner
of the DNR, but there is no limitation.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked him to define municipality under this
scenario.
SENATOR TAYLOR replied that there would be home rule and second
class.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if all other unorganized boroughs would be
eligible for the same land.
MS. KROGSENG answered that it is her understanding that all
political subdivisions fall under the classification of
municipality (according the George Utermohle, Legislative Legal
Services).
SENATOR LINCOLN asked what a political subdivision meant.
MS. KROGSENG answered that she thought it meant you're incorporated
as an entity.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD added that a city and borough does not include
unincorporated communities.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if there was a definition of what development
means. Is it planning or does there have to be a structure?
SENATOR TAYLOR answered that he planned on having it done by that
time. He didn't want cities applying for ball fields and then
never building them just so they could get additional land.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD clarified that taking out the reversionary
requirement doesn't mean the Commissioner can't enter into a
contractual obligation that gets performance within that four year
period.
MS. CAROL CAROLL, Director, Administrative Services, DNR, said they
have looked at the bill and there are a couple of differences with
the authority they already have to transfer lands or make grants to
municipalities or entities. Those two differences are the reverter
clause which they prefer not to be there and the other is that it
won't be applied to the municipal entitlement portion. The grants
that they make now for public purposes count against the entity's
municipal entitlement. She said that when DNR does this kind of
transfer, it is always for a public purpose and there was a
question that the land in this bill might be used for a private
facility. Other than those differences, this does duplicate the
authority DNR already has.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if this was intended for private ownership.
SENATOR TAYLOR answered no, he had never thought of it.
SENATOR LEMAN said he wasn't so sure they should restrict this from
being a privately constructed facility even though it was on public
land. He thought they would want a municipality to have that
option.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he didn't want to create something that was
in direct competition with a private entity, but he also agreed
with the other view that there are private management contracts
running public facilities. He wasn't sure he wanted to create a
preferential way to create a privately owned facility, even if it's
open to the public.
SENATOR LEMAN said he understood, but there are times when you may
have to pony up the land to make the economics work.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if they would contribute the land to a
private profit-making developer.
SENATOR GREEN said she thought Ms. Caroll said there was a
prohibition against it going to a for-profit entity.
MS. CAROLL responded that she was comparing what DNR's authorities
are right now to the bill as Senator Taylor had it. Usually DNR,
when they grant land, requires it to be for a public purpose and
for the most part it is in public ownership. There are leases that
private entities do have on State and municipal land.
SENATOR GREEN asked about the Sullivan Arena.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said it is publicly owned and financed, but there
are management contracts.
SENATOR GREEN asked if there would be a prohibition against
management contracts.
MS. CAROLL said she would check on that.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if there is a prohibition against any entities
being owned by private enterprise.
MS. CAROLL said she didn't think there was, but she would check on
that also.
Number 363
SENATOR TAYLOR moved on line 10 to delete the reversionary
statement. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
There was general discussion of lands for public purposes versus
private and SENATOR TAYLOR said that many cities are already fully
entitled and other cities are afraid if they take land under
current law for recreational purposes, they are restricting the
amount of land they may need for another commercial or industrial
purpose.
Number 291
SENATOR LEMAN moved on page 1, line 7 to delete "by the
municipality" and insert "for public purposes." Also in that same
amendment on page 2, line 1 delete "by the municipality." There
were no objections and it was so adopted.
SENATOR SHARP asked Ms. Caroll if she felt they were still
operating within the present parameters the Department wishes as
far as maintaining public ownership.
MS. CAROLL said it would still be their wish that it be out of the
municipality's land.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSSB 204(RES)from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
SB 213 - EXTEND ALASKA MINERALS COMMISSION
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 213 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR DUNCAN, sponsor, said SB 213 extends the termination date
of the Alaska Minerals Commission from January 1999 to February 1,
2004.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said there is a $0 fiscal note which he didn't
think was right on a sunset bill, because the Commission could not
go forward without passage of legislation. The Administration
included it in their budget, because they assume it's going
forward. This one is odd, because it would sunset in the middle of
a fiscal year. He said there really is a fiscal impact to
extending a commission.
SENATOR DUNCAN said his point was well taken.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved SB 213 from committee with individual
recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|