Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/03/2002 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
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
April 3, 2002
3:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator John Torgerson, Chair
Senator Gary Wilken, Vice Chair
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Ben Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 219
"An Act establishing and relating to the Joint Federal and State
Navigable Waters Commission for Alaska; and providing for an
effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 353
"An Act relating to the labeling of animal and poultry feeds and
to the agriculture program coordinator; and providing for an
effective date."
MOVED CSSB 353(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 354
"An Act relating to the prices paid by milk processing plants to
suppliers of fluid milk."
MOVED CSSB 219(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 356
"An Act relating to the authority of the Department of
Environmental Conservation to issue general and individual
permits for waste disposal; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED SB 356 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 44(RES)am
Strongly urging the President of the United States, the United
States Congress, and appropriate federal officials to support the
construction and operation of the Alaska Highway Natural Gas
Pipeline route.
MOVED SCS HJR 44(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 219 - No previous action to consider.
SB 353 - No previous action to consider.
SB 354 - No previous action to consider.
SB 356 - No previous action to consider.
HJR 44 - No previous action to consider.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Ron Sommerville
Consultant to the Senate and House Majority
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 219.
Ms. Carol Carroll, Director
Division of Support Services
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Ave.
Juneau, AK 99801-1724
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 219.
Ms. Janey Winegar
Staff to Senator Lyda Green
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 353 for sponsor.
Representative John Harris
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 353 and is sponsor of HB 432,
companion bill.
Mr. Michael Purviance
POB 1656
Delta Junction AK 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 353.
Ms. Marta Mueller
516 Auklet Place
Fairbanks AK 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 353.
Mr. River Bean, President
Alaska Organic Association
Palmer, AK 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 353.
Mr. Larry De Vilbiss
HC04 Box 9302
Palmer AK 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 353 and SB 354.
Ms. Kelly Langford LaDere
Secretary, Alaska Livestock Producers' Cooperative
Chairperson, Upper Susitna Water and Soil Conservation District
No Address Provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 353 and SB 354.
Mr. Wayne Brost
No Address Provided
Mackenzie AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 354.
Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 356.
Mr. Tom Chapple, Director
Division of Air and Water Quality
Department of Environmental Conservation
555 Cordova St.
Anchorage AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 356.
Mr. Bill Jeffress
Manager, Environmental Services, Fairbanks Coal Mining
Vice President, Council of Alaska Producers
POB 73726
Fairbanks AK 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 356.
Ms. Charlotte McCay, Senior Administrator
Environmental and Regulatory Affairs
Tec-Cominco Alaska/Red Dog Mine
No Address Provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 356.
Mr. Tad Owens, Executive Director
Resource Development Council
121 W. Fireweed, No. 207
Anchorage, AK 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 356.
Ms. Linda Hay
Staff to Representative Scott Ogan
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HJR 44.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-15, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 219-NAVIGABLE WATERS COMMISSION
CHAIRMAN JOHN TORGERSON called the Senate Resources Committee
meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. Present were Senators Wilken,
Halford, Stevens and Chairman Torgerson. He said he would
probably not have a quorum to take action on bills today, but
would at least take testimony on the bills. He announced SB 219
to be up for consideration.
MR. RON SOMMERVILLE, consultant to the House and Senate Majority,
said that SB 219 is designed for one purpose - to expedite the
process for determination of navigability in Alaska. He explained
some background history as follows:
In a nutshell when we got statehood in 1959 and the
state inherited title to about 60 million acres of tide
and submerged lands, about 15 million of that is
navigable waters under our streams and, according to
DNR, about 30 some million acres lies within our marine
submerged lands out to three miles. The key on
navigability is if it was navigable at statehood, it's
navigable today. The problem has been - now I'll go
through two or three items which will illustrate why in
fact we should pursue a more expeditious process. The
final determination, unfortunately, has fallen in
almost every case to the federal courts, which is not
unusual. That's the way almost every state has done,
except Alaska has a considerable amount of water -
about 22,000 thousand streams which could probably be
litigated as being navigable or nonnavigable and
upwards of one million or more of water bodies, lakes
in particular, that could be litigated as well.
The problem basically is, as the state has found in the
Quiet Title Act itself, in summarizing it, the feds in
essence, the Court under the Quiet Title Act, can be
defendants in adjudicating a disputed title in which
the U.S. claims an interest. The feds have taken a
narrow view of that and it has been upheld to some
extent in the courts. If the feds don't take an active
interest or assert an active interest in a particular
water body, then the state is powerless to force some
sort of quiet title act. I'll give you an example of
that in just a second.
The second basic problem is the navigability criteria
itself. Although the Utah Lake decision in 1987 said if
Congress didn't explicitly take away the tide and
submerged land estate under the Equal Footing Clause,
in essence when we became a state, we inherited that
title.
The Gulkana Case in 1987 was probably the key case in
Alaska, which I might add that most of the attorneys
have told me that navigability is kind of on a state-
by-state, case-by-case basis - particular water body or
stream or whatever. The Gulkana was specific to Alaska.
In your packets there's kind of a summary of the
Gulkana thing. I could read that if you desire, but in
essence it affirmed what the state had been contending
for a long time - that is a very broad definition as to
the navigability use or use as a water body for
commerce. The Gulkana criteria has been applied since
1983 to almost every decision, although be it very few
of them relating to navigability. But it is a standard
by which navigability will be determined in the future.
There have been other cases that the Department of Law
has pursued in order to try to get some clear
definition from the courts as to what water bodies
would qualify.
The third item, which is a difficulty, is the BLM
surveys themselves, one of the reasons why the state is
now looking at some expeditious process for determining
that [indisc.]. It wasn't until 1983 when
administratively BLM decided to utilize its own BLM
manual of surveying instructions, and later ratified,
by the way, in 1988 by Congress instructing them to do
that. But prior to 1983 a lot of conveyances were made
to corporations in the state, Native Corporations under
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, where in fact
the BLM did not determine navigability. As such, a lot
of streams and water bodies were transferred and
submerged lands with them to the corporations whereby
the state said we think a lot of these water bodies
were in fact navigable and thus sets up a case where
you have plotted title and the potential for numerous
litigation. So, there's never been an attempt to go
back prior to 1983 and correct the errors that were
made in the conveyances.
Since statehood there have been 13 rivers determined by
the federal courts to be navigable in 40-some years. We
estimate 22,000 rivers and the cost of about $1 million
went into a court case called the Kandig, Nation and
the Black Rivers [in northeast Alaska]. That was three
rivers out of two hundred that the Department of Law
had submitted in 1992 and 1996 to Department of
Interior with indication on the Quiet Title Act - 180
day notice, we intend to quiet title to these two
hundred water bodies.
Nine years later and $1 million later we resolved two
of them. The third one is the one I was mentioning a
while ago - is this issue of the feds convinced the
courts that they had not asserted title to one of the
rivers. So, two of them were resolved and one was left,
in essence, in abeyance. There was no decision. At this
rate, you can calculate it will take us 99,000 years to
resolve our title to our navigable waters and an excess
of $11 billion if the same criteria were applied.
Why do we need title? If the state is going to manage
its water bodies, which it more and more needs to do,
that if you want to issue leases, you want to exercise
jurisdiction, title becomes important, because along
with title comes the ability to regulate what happens
in the water column. SB 219 is designed specifically
for that purpose. The body itself that is being created
does not have any authority, it won't go into affect
until a similar law is passed in Congress setting it
up. The individuals appointed would make
recommendations as to which water bodies qualify under
the Gulkana decision or other criteria established by
the courts. It would provide a list of navigable or
nonnavigable waters, which could then be verified by
Congress, the administration, the courts or whatever. I
think Senator Halford could elaborate more on a recent
meeting that he participated in with the Secretary and
the delegation. The response was positive to the
concept and that's why Senator Halford asked that this
bill is before you.
SENATOR HALFORD said:
We met with the Secretary of Interior and suggested
what we were looking at, as the first draft, to create
an entity that would make recommendations for being
passed by state law and federal law and she said,
'Well, we have a proposal that we're considering for RS
2477s in Utah where basically the federal government
files a recordable, basically, a notice of
nonobjection, which essentially closes the case or as
close as you can get to a quit claim on an easement.'
That was more than we had hoped to think about even
asking for. The draft you have takes out a lot of the
formality in the original version, but it still takes a
working group to come up with those that aren't
controversial to be recommended for solution. That was
the conversation. We were very pleased with the
conversation.
MS. CAROL CARROLL, Director, Administrative Services, DNR,
offered:
The department has a navigability person and the only
thing that we are really able to do is to look at the
conveyances that the federal government does give us
and analyze those to make sure that they have conveyed
the land that they are supposed to and that they
haven't counted the riverbeds within that conveyance.
We also, with the one person that we have there, we
make sure that we take navigability into consideration
when we do land sales by making sure that we get an
easement so we have public access. For the committee's
information, on the House side that person has been cut
out of the budget. I just wanted you to know that. The
department on this bill feels it would be a good idea.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked, "Do you like the bill?"
MS. CARROLL replied, "We feel it would be that something really
does need to be done and this bill is certainly one way you could
do that."
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said, "It's the only way I've seen so far.
It's a very important bill."
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said they would hold the bill until Senator
Wilken could join them.
SB 353-AGRICULT. PROG.COORDINATOR/ANIMAL FEED
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON announced SB 353 to be up for consideration.
MS. JANEY WINEGAR, staff to Senator Lyda Green, sponsor of SB
353, said that Pete Fellman, staff to Representative John Harris
is very aware of this issue and the bill. She said SB 353
addresses three areas, organic crop inspections, feed labeling
and control of noxious weeds, and that she would see that the
committee received a copy of "Noxious Invasive Plant Management
In Alaska" that was produced by the University of Alaska
Cooperative Extension Service. She said:
These weeds tend to impact our hunting and fishing
grounds, agricultural crops and they're getting more
invasive every year. Several western states have spent
millions and millions of dollars controlling weeds.
They're at a point now that they're very invasive and
becoming very destructive. We're at the crossroads in
Alaska where we can take control of them now with a
little bit of money put into it.
As far as the labeling of animal feed, we are the only
state that doesn't require labeling of what's in animal
feed and we think that we need to do that and come up
to national standards. Another area that we're
addressing is the organic label. Federal labeling laws
require that organic food inspectors may not have a
vested interest or participation in growing or
processing the foods being certified. Either an outside
inspector or staff person will need to be hired to
determine that it is in fact organic foods and has been
grown and processed within Alaska.
This bill speaks to three problems by requiring the
commissioner of [the] Department of Natural Resources
to appoint an agricultural program coordinator to
oversee management of an organic crop labeling program,
adopt animal feed standards and implement this plan
that the University has developed on noxious and
invasive plant management as recommended by and
developed in cooperation with federal, state, local and
private agencies and groups…
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON referred to language on page 1, line 7,
"establish requirements that are compatible with federal law and
the laws of other states" and asked why laws of other states were
included.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS, sponsor of HB 432, a companion bill
to SB 353, responded that there is a publication put out by a
federal organization that coordinated legislation in all states
on this issue and developed model legislation so there is a
uniform standard when it comes to weed control.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said he didn't know if he wanted that
requirement. He asked what would happen if a state adopted
something contradictory to what Alaska wants and Alaska had to
abide by their laws.
MR. MICHAEL PURVIANCE, Delta Junction resident, stated support
for SB 353. He said he started farming in Delta a few years ago
on virgin ground and he is already beginning to see invasive
weeds like chickweed. He said if we don't address these problems
now, they will become big problems that would require millions of
dollars to correct. He urged members to adopt this legislation.
MS. MARTA MUELLER, lifelong Alaska resident, said she is a UAF
student and supports SB 353 for the following reasons.
The Agriculture Coordinator Commission will [indisc.]
its development in Alaska. Working with the federally
mandated Organic Food Regulations will help Alaskan
food producers market organic foods, because the
standards consumers can follow will be in place
[indisc.].
Second, enforcing the existing state noxious weed code
and reviewing DNR regulations can help development by
assuring disturbed areas, such as mineral leases,
transportation corridors, [indisc.], public recreation
areas and farms remain weed free…
MR. RIVER BEAN, President, Alaska Organic Association, said the
federal Natural Organic Program would supercede the certifying
organic program in Alaska this year. He added:
While the standards that the federal government has are
not as stringent as the ones that we have for the state
of Alaska, we still would like to see the [indisc.]
natural organic program standards be [indisc.]
regardless.
What SB 353 does is it removes the old organic law from
the [indisc.] book, which are the worst standards in
the nation… It will also adopt a national organic
program that becomes effective, I believe October 22 of
this year. And third, it allows the State of Alaska to
become accredited with the federal government to
certify organic foods and [indisc]. Without passing
this bill, the farmers are going to have to rely on
out-of-state certification and carry their labels on
the organic Alaskan-grown foods - like certified with
standards of California or Washington state. It's
unlikely that any organic farmer in the State of Alaska
would want another state's label on their Alaskan
organic foods.
So, the consumer is left without a choice. If they have
a preference for buying certified organic foods, they
will be forced to buy certified organic foods that are
not grown in this state…
MR. LARRY DE VILBISS, Mat-Su "carrot man," said this bill is
important to his business. Last year he began the process of
transitioning his entire farm to organic, including carrots and
beets, about 1,000 acres outside of Palmer. If they are not able
to continue with the certification process that they started
about five years ago through the Alaska Organic Association, they
can't continue the program or switch to the one from out of
state.
MS. KELLY LANGFORD LADERE, Secretary, Alaska Livestock Producers'
Cooperative, said she also had been President and that she was
Chairperson for the Upper Susitna Water and Soil Conservation
District, a quasi-state agency that functions within DNR, and is
composed of volunteers from within the district covering two
million acres in the Upper Susitna Valley. She also makes her
living as a farmer and a rancher.
Regarding the labeling aspect of this legislation, she said it's
very important for people who have made the investment in
livestock in Alaska that the feedstuffs that come out of a bag
and go into the animals be of a certain standard. In the past
unlabelled feed has come into the state and has contributed
substantially to the noxious weed and invasive plant problems
that are taking place across Alaskan farms, roadsides, railroad
beds, and along rivers. She said, "Accurate labeling will allow
the consumer the option of choosing a higher quality feed that
may be certified as weed-free. She plants about 400 acres of oats
each year and buys only certified weed-free, however even it has
noxious and invasive weeds.
MS. LADERE said that a number of people across the state are
trying to reach this level of organic certification. "It's
expensive; they have to go through multiple years of inspection
of their farm…"
She said that most of the noxious plants that affect livestock in
this state have been introduced. For the first time in 50 years
on one of her farms she is going to have to spray a chemical to
control invasive plants and she is not happy about it.
SENATOR WILKEN moved on line 7 to delete the last six words, "and
the laws of other states". There were no objections and the
amendment was adopted.
SENATOR WILKEN moved to report CSSB 353(RES) from committee with
individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
SB 219-NAVIGABLE WATERS COMMISSION
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON announced SB 219 to be back up for
consideration.
SENATOR WILKEN moved to report SB 219 from committee with
individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. Someone
noted that the committee had not adopted the committee
substitute.
SENATOR WILKEN moved and asked unanimous consent to rescind their
actions in reporting SB 219 from committee. There were no
objections.
SENATOR WILKEN moved to adopt the CS to SB 219, version C, Cooke,
3/27/02. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR WILKEN moved to report CSSB 219(RES) from committee with
individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
SB 354-PRICES PAID BY MILK PROCESSING PLANTS
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON announced SB 354 to be up for consideration.
MS. JANEY WINEGAR, staff to Senator Lyda Green, sponsor of SB
354, said this bill has to do with farmers receiving fair pricing
for their milk, which has become fairly complex in today's market
place and is based upon a combination of factors including
protein, butter fat, non-fat solids and bacteria content of the
milk. This bill injects fairness into the milk market place in
Alaska by stipulating that if a milk processor opts to penalize a
dairy farmer for a low milk fat content, the processors must also
reward those farmers whose product has a high milk fat content.
MR. WAYNE BROST said he was from Mackenzie and supported SB 354.
He got a letter from the processing plant telling him that the
butter fat of his cows' milk was a little lower than the
standard, which is 3.25%. In the summer he turns his cows out to
graze and they get a higher volume of high moisture feed and the
butter fat drops. Most of the time it's above 3.25%. He remarked,
"I was threatened there to get a dock on my pay if it was below,
but I was never offered anything when it was above. So, I'm in
support of this bill so there's some reciprocity and fairness for
the producer here."
MR. LARRY DE VILBISS said it has been 20 years since he ran a
dairy, but he remembered that he was actually penalized for too
much butter fat. He commented, "But we're living in a different
world and there's a commercial value there that I think dairymen
ought to be getting so I support it."
MS. LADERE said she had been in Alaska for 55 years and ever
since she was nine she had been involved with agriculture. She
explained:
Very simply, more butter fat figures into a higher
value product for the processing plant. That increased
butter fat has a dollar advantage and so anyone who
produces a milk, a dairy product or milk that goes into
a processing plant should logically get a higher price
for his milk and I think it just is that simple.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if a milk producing plant under this
legislation must pay a premium for more than 3.25% butter fat,
whether the plant has the option of buying milk elsewhere so that
it doesn't have to pay the premium. He questioned, "Doesn't that
give the supplier a reason to go somewhere else?"
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS responded that there is a national standard
for whole milk. If Matanuska Maid purchases that milk, generally
it will skim it down to the standard and buy it at a certain
price. This bill basically says if your milk has a higher fat
content than that standard, then it has a value. He added:
If the processing plant decides to dock you for a
reduction in that value, then they must pay you the
same value on the other end. So, we're not saying that
they have to pay a premium. All we're saying in this
legislation is that if the plant decides to dock you
for not having high enough butter fat, then they must
also pay you when you are above the national standard.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if they also docked the outside supplier.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS explained when they bring milk in from the
Lower 48, generally they specify what fat content they want and
they pay for that value. He said, "If Mat-Maid says instead of
3.25%, we would like 3.5%, then they would pay for that
additional fat when they bring it in."
SENATOR WILKEN asked if this bill jeopardizes their ability to
market greater than 3.25% butterfat milk.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS answered no.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if there is a relationship between a
standard plate count [SPC] and butterfat content.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS replied:
Indirectly. It's pretty involved and I can explain it.
Standard plate count is your bacteria count and so
usually the standard plate count comes from dirty
equipment and that causes your plate count to go up.
However, dirty equipment can cause your e-coli to go up
and your e-coli can affect the quality of your milk and
it could reduce the percent of butterfat that is
produced by the milk cow. So, it could have an effect.
SENATOR STEVENS read from a rate sheet released by Mat-Maid on
January 1, 2001, about a quality bonus incentive program. He
asked if that was based on the quality of the facility, for
example the use of clean equipment, or the quality of the milk
produced by the animal.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS responded:
No, when the standard plate count and the coliform
counts are indications of what's in the milk, it
doesn't necessarily determine how it gets there, but it
helps determine how it gets there. So, if you milk a
cow with some equipment that hasn't been kept up to the
standard, then your plate count will go up in your tank
of milk and if your plate count goes up, then the value
of your milk drops. That's why they have the quality
bonus. The same thing with e-coli. If a cow happens to
have an e-coli bacteria in their mammary system, it
comes through and gets into the whole tank of milk and
if that's the case, the value of that milk drops.
SENATOR STEVENS said on the flip side, if you had a lower SPC
count, the bonus goes up.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said that was right.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if there was no correlation between
butterfat content and the SPC or coliform.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS replied, "Not that it can be directly
proven. Generally, the SPC and the e-coli counts have to do with
either equipment or the health of the mammary system."
SENATOR STEVENS asked if the butter fat plan had ever been
revised from 3.3% for Grade A, currently priced at $19.75 per
cubic weight ton.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said that was for a hundred weight of milk.
SENATOR STEVENS noted that it said they would dock a penalty of
1/10th of 1% for content under 3.25%.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS replied there was more documentation from
Mat-Maid saying that the standard for whole milk is 3.25.
4:25 p.m.
TAPE 02-15, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said:
In the Lower 48 they have milk marketing orders, which
is a federal system that helps provide for guidance and
money for the farmers to get together and establish a
milk marketing order and then establish what these
standards are. The milk marketing order - they go to
the processing plant and say if you want all of our
milk, this is the price that we need to have. The State
of Alaska has a state-owned processing plant and one
private plant and we have - I think we're down to eight
dairy farms. So, we just don't have the volume of
people to be able to dictate what we have to get,
because Matanuska Maid is already bringing in 75% of
the milk from Outside. So, it's just as easy for them
not to negotiate.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if the other cooperatives use a structure
so that if you have high fat content, you're rewarded and if you
have low content, you're penalized. He asked if that is an
industry norm.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS replied, "Yes."
SENATOR WILKEN asked if Mat-Maid had commented on this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said that the Director of Agriculture, Rob
Wells, had seen the bill. Matanuska Maid has the creamery board,
which meets and dictates the policy of the creamers and Mr. Wells
attends those meetings, but he had nothing in writing.
SENATOR WILKEN asked what will keep them from buying milk
somewhere else where they don't have to pay the premium.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS replied that there's no place else in the
Lower 48 where they don't have a premium.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said he wanted to pass this bill, but they
would set it aside for lack of a quorum.
SB 356-GENERAL PERMIT FOR WATER/WASTE DISPOSAL
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON announced SB 356 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, sponsor of SB 356, said the legislation
was introduced to assure that the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) could continue to issue the general permits as
it has done for a number of years. He explained:
Legislation was passed a couple of years ago that
allowed the DEC to work on a uniform fee structure for
general permits that were to be issued for ongoing or
basic types of permitted activities, HB 361. This bill
is to insure the DEC has the underlying statutory
authority to actually issue the permits that the
legislature approved the fee structure for then.
Examples of the types of permits are remote camps or
lodges, logging camps, fish hatcheries, sewer systems
for communities with fewer than 1,000 people, and some
oil well drilling operations. The value of the general
permits are that they allow DEC to avoid duplication by
creating one permit instead of multiple identical
permits for activities where the risk of impact to the
environment is either low or can be easily mitigated
with common treatment practices. General permits save
DEC and the regulated community time and money while
accomplishing the goal of environmental protection.
General permits go hand in hand with the permit fee
structure that was created. General permits also allow
DEC to allocate more resources to field site visits and
inspections, because they don't have to have personnel
tied up in the department sort of reinventing the wheel
over and over.
He said they worked with DEC to draft this language and that
committee packets contain a letter from DEC that contains two
concerns. The first concern is on page 1:
First, general permits, in our view, are appropriate
only when the risk and impact to the environment is
either low or can be readily and fully mitigated with
common treatment practices.
SENATOR THERRIAULT thought this concern was addressed in Section
3 on page 2, lines 23 - 25, of the bill, which reads:
A general permit may be issued only if the commissioner
determines that the activities that will be authorized
under the permit are similar in nature and will cause
only minimal adverse environmental effects when
performed separately and in the aggregate.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said Section 3 gives the commissioner wide
latitude to determine when the permit is appropriate. He noted
DEC's second concern reads:
The procedures for developing and issuing general
permits set out in statute, must describe how the
public can comment on a proposed general permit and
must provide for a reasonable dissemination of
information on which the facilities or activities are
operating under a general permit.
He believes Section 6 addresses that concern and read:
The commissioner shall immediately send copies of the
application or proposal to the commissioner of fish and
game, the commissioner of natural resources, the
commissioner of community and economic development and
the commissioner of health and social services.
Section 6 explains how the information is provided to other
departments that might have a concern.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked Mr. Chapple, DEC, if his department's
concerns were addressed in the bill.
MR. TOM CHAPPLE, Director, Air and Water Quality, DEC, said he
supported SB 356 as written.
MR. BILL JEFFRESS, Manager, Environmental Services, Fairbanks
Coal Mining, and Vice President, Council of Alaska Producers,
said as the Vice President of the Producers' Council he was a
representative of the DEC sponsored work group that came up with
recommendations over the course of a year and a half. He
commented:
One of the things we found very important and crucial
to DEC's credibility as a regulating community is these
general permits and, as Senator Therriault said, this
is an efficient way of minimizing the amount of
resources DEC expends on writing individual permits
that cover basically the same issues. The general
permits cut down on the redundancy and what is really
important is to show a field presence. I think it's
good for the regulated community and the credibility of
DEC's program as far as their oversight and making sure
that the resources of Alaska are protected. I think
Senator Therriault did an excellent job of
characterizing all of the bill. What we wanted to
emphasize is that we not only supported HB 361, but SB
356 clarifies what exactly DEC's authority is. We
support the bill.
MS. CHARLOTTE MCCAY, Senior Administrator, Environmental and
Regulatory Affairs, Tec-Cominco Alaska, operators of the Red Dog
Mine, said:
Industry is reliant on DEC for numerous important
permits. DEC can be most effective by providing
standardized general permits for similar facilities
with similar environmental risks. This frees DEC's time
and resources to address more significant and
individualized permits. DEC is then more efficient in
fulfilling their duties and industry receives more
timely permits. At Red Dog, we had many permits. That
takes a lot of time and it's important to us that they
be available as best possible.
MR. TAD OWENS, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
(RDC), said the RDC has worked with the legislature and DEC over
the last several years on permit streamlining and this bill is
another step in that direction. He elaborated:
There are two reasons why RDC is strongly in support of
this legislation. The first is we feel general permits
are a real win-win. It not only allows DEC to operate
more efficiently and allocate their resources more
effectively across the broad array of services they
need to provide, but it gives industry a great deal
more predictability and certainty and simplicity in
dealing with essentially repetitive and diminimous
activities in terms of environmental impact.
And, secondly, as Senator Therriault mentioned, we
worked very closely with the legislature on HB 361 and
are very happy to report that industry and the agencies
have fared very well under that new fee structure and
this bill essentially assures that DEC will be able to
match up general permits with the fixed fees that HB
361 supported… We very much support the bill.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON thanked everyone for their testimony and said
they would hold the bill for a quorum.
HJR 44-ALASKA NATURAL GAS PIPELINE ROUTE
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON announced HJR 44 to be up for consideration.
MS. LINDA HAY, staff to Representative Scott Ogan, said HJR 44
was introduced to clearly articulate Alaska's position regarding
commercialization of our natural gas reserves. It was introduced
at the request of the Joint Committee on Natural Gas Pipelines.
It received bi-partisan support in all committees in the House
and on the floor of the House.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said he only had a problem with one section
and he wanted the committee to delete language on page 4, lines
22 and 23, which was added by Representative Green. He added:
I don't necessarily think we want to go out and tell
the United States that we're going to stabilize gas
prices, because we've already run into opposition from
some of the initiatives that have been brought forward
from other gas producing states, because in fact we
might stabilize prices, but we don't want to lead with
our chin…
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said they would recess until he could get a
quorum back to take official action.
4:45 - 5:10 p.m. RECESS
SB 354-PRICES PAID BY MILK PROCESSING PLANTS
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON announced SB 354 to be back before the
committee.
SENATOR WILKEN moved to pass SB 354 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
SB 356-GENERAL PERMIT FOR WATER/WASTE DISPOSAL
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON announced SB 356 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR WILKEN moved SB 356 from committee with individual
recommendations and zero fiscal note. There were no objections
and it was so ordered.
HJR 44-ALASKA NATURAL GAS PIPELINE ROUTE
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON announced HJR 44 to be back up for
consideration.
SENATOR WILKEN moved to amend HJR 44 on page 4 to delete lines 22
and 23 - "WHEREAS the large volume of gas delivered to the lower
48 states may initially stabilize gas prices at a lower level,
bringing financial benefit to the lower 48 economy; and". There
were no objections and it was amended.
SENATOR WILKEN moved to pass SCSHJR 44(RES) from committee with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal note. There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON thanked everyone and adjourned the meeting at
5:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|