Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/27/2003 01:35 PM Senate TRA
| 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 TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 27, 2003
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator John Cowdery, Chair
Senator Thomas Wagoner, Vice Chair
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 31
"An Act relating to a railroad utility corridor for extension of
the Alaska Railroad to Canada and to extension of the Alaska
Railroad to connect with the North American railroad system."
MOVED CSSB 31(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
SB 31 - See Transportation minutes dated 2/11/03 and 3/11/03.
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Phyllis Johnson
Chief General Counsel
Alaska Railroad Corporation
PO Box 107500
Anchorage, AK 99510-7500
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on proposed CSSB 31
Mr. Bob Loeffler
Director of Land, Water and Mining
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Ave.
Juneau, AK 99801-1724
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on proposed CSSB 31
Ms. Wendy Lindskoog
Director of External Affairs
Alaska Railroad Corporation
PO Box 107500
Anchorage, AK 99510-7500
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on proposed CSSB 31
Senator Fred Dyson
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested amendments to SB 31
Mr. Richard Schmitz
Staff to Senator Cowdery
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on proposed CSSB 31
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-11, SIDE A
CHAIR JOHN COWDERY called the Senate Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Senators Wagoner,
Lincoln, Therriault and Chair Cowdery were present. Senator
Olson arrived momentarily. He announced SB 31 to be up for
consideration.
SB 31-RAILROAD UTILITY CORRIDOR TO & IN CANADA
CHAIR COWDERY announced his intention to move SB 31 from
committee and that a committee substitute, labeled version I,
was prepared.
SENATOR WAGONER motioned to adopt version I as the working
document. The motion carried with no objection.
CHAIR COWDERY informed members that he had distributed a list of
bullet points to members and that Ms. Johnson would describe the
changes.
MS. PHYLLIS JOHNSON, Vice President and General Counsel for the
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC), told members that she and
staff from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Wendy
Lindskoog worked closely on the revisions. They used the basic
structure of SB 31 and defined more steps in the process. They
tried to set up a three-tier arrangement. ARRC still has the
ability to delineate a proposed transportation corridor. The
proposed corridor would be 500 feet wide unless topographic
obstacles or private land ownership patterns prevent that width.
After ARRC proposes the 500-foot corridor with additional areas
for maintenance, transfer facilities or other needs, DNR would
reserve the corridor on the state record subject to valid,
existing rights. DNR would continue to manage the land because
even though the corridor was identified, ARRC would not begin
construction until funding is established. DNR would have to
consult with ARRC whenever it receives new applications for
leases in the area and make sure that any uses it authorizes
accommodate the railroad. ARRC and DNR would cooperate on an
ongoing basis to identify the best locations for railroad
crossings so that public access to resources and activities is
reserved and safety concerns are addressed. Once ARRC receives
funding to begin construction on some portion of the route, DNR
would transfer the management of authority of that portion to
ARRC, subject to valid existing rights and subject to DNR's
continuing authority to identify potential crossings.
MS. JOHNSON said when construction is completed, ARRC would
provide DNR with an as-built survey of the centerline and
corridor and 100-feet either side of centerline for the
traditional 200 foot right-of-way. That right-of-way would be
conveyed to ARRC. The intention is to preserve the full 500 feet
as a transportation corridor that could be used for other
purposes. ARRC's 200-foot right-of-way would be a mini-corridor
within the larger corridor. ARRC would have title and full
authority to do what it chooses within the 200 feet. DNR would
continue to manage the remainder of the 500-foot corridor. The
bill also contains some fallback provisions so that if, at some
point in time, ARRC notifies DNR that it would never build in a
segment and that it is not needed as a transportation corridor,
DNR could administer the entire corridor under its statutes.
MS. JOHNSON said that subsection (f) on page 4 is a special
provision to address the event that construction of a natural
gas pipeline becomes more likely. If DNR receives an application
for construction of that pipeline, DNR would give ARRC notice.
If able at that time, ARRC would choose its centerline. She
described subsection (f) as a "speak now or hold your peace"
provision for ARRC. If the centerline were delineated, DNR would
not allow the pipeline to be constructed within that 200-foot
corridor. If ARRC did not delineate the centerline at that time,
DNR would still have to consult with ARRC to minimize the
effects on the rail route when it authorizes construction of the
natural gas line.
MS. JOHNSON told members the following subparagraph (g) reserves
DNR's right to identify and permit the appropriate locations for
future crossings. DNR would work closely with ARRC and get
ARRC's concurrence, which is limited to safety and operating
matters. She said the remaining changes are similar to the
original bill and merely "clean up loose ends." For example,
ARRC is directed to work with the federal government once it
identifies the route to set aside and withdraw any federal lands
that the route might cross. It requires ARRC to do an
environmental impact statement (EIS) when it gets to the point
of acquiring federal lands. If the chosen route contains
privately owned land, ARRC would have to consider whether to
exercise the power of eminent domain, negotiate, or change the
route.
1:45 p.m.
CHAIR COWDERY asked where a gas line entity would apply for the
right-of-way.
MS. JOHNSON replied if the gas line entity were ready to apply
before the railroad is in the construction process, it would go
to DNR because the corridor would be reserved and managed by
DNR. She said the wrinkle is that DNR would be obligated to
consult with ARRC and give it the opportunity to pinpoint where
the rail line might be located within the 500-foot corridor.
SENATOR WAGONER noted that version I contains provisions that
address construction of the pipeline prior to construction of
the railroad. However, one reason cited as the need for this
legislation is to enable construction of a rail link for
shipping the pipe for the pipeline. He asked if that is still
the case and if DNR or ARRC would get the revenue from the
pipeline in the corridor.
CHAIR COWDERY said he believes the revenue would go to the
state. He cited the need for the railroad to transport the pipe
and acknowledged that decision would have to be made at the
time.
MS. JOHNSON added that ARRC's designation of the 500-foot right-
of-way would not entitle the railroad to any revenue from
anything. The management authority and revenues from any
contracts within that corridor would remain with DNR until the
rail line is ready to be constructed and funding has been
identified. A provision on page 3 [subsection (d)] says that DNR
will give ARRC management authority for segments of the corridor
that are ready for construction for the construction time
period. That includes the authority to allow permits to other
parties. ARRC would step into DNR's shoes for that portion of
the 500-foot right-of-way where construction is taking place.
When ARRC has completed that construction and gives DNR the
survey, DNR would transfer the full title to ARRC. ARRC would
then continue to receive revenue from any contracts it has
within its 200-foot right-of-way.
CHAIR COWDERY commented that a 200-foot right-of-way translates
to 100-feet on either side of centerline, which is not adequate
to build a pipeline.
MR. BOB LOEFFLER, Director of the Division of Land, Mining, and
Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), told members:
We expect that portions of the right-of-way may
overlap and it would provide an opportunity for the
railroad to be constructed to provide transport for
the right-of-way so those portions that do overlap -
they would get the revenue for.
MS. WENDY LINDSKOOG, Director of External Affairs, ARRC, added
that the intent was to recognize that if the railroad does not
have the funds for construction of a rail line and the gas
pipeline is ready to move forward, the route of the rail line
would be much less flexible than the route of the gas line. This
language allows ARRC to at least survey the centerline, taking
into consideration its engineering requirements, and to identify
the 100-feet on either side. If the gas line had to interface
with the railroad route, a mechanism is set up in the bill to
approach that discussion in cooperation with DNR.
CHAIR COWDERY announced that Senator Dyson had joined the
committee.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Loeffler who would receive the revenue
from an overlap.
MR. LOEFFLER replied:
... you prorate them such that the portion within the
railroad's land would go to the railroad and the
portion outside of the railroad land would go to DNR.
This is a very common occurrence, which we have all
over the state and it's pretty straightforward.
SENATOR LINCOLN referred to subsection (f) on page 4 and read:
If the corporation provides a survey alignment to the
department, the department may not authorize
construction of a natural gas pipeline within a 200-
foot [wide] corridor center...unless the department
does not find a feasible and prudent alternative.
She expressed concern that the language would lead the state
into court at some time. She said legislators support a natural
gas pipeline and the likely route is well known, but this
legislation puts the cart before the horse.
CHAIR COWDERY said the corridor that would be more of a "paper
corridor." It would not be surveyed until the railroad needs to
be built and would most likely be identified from satellite
images.
1:55 p.m.
MS. JOHNSON added that ARRC envisions the corridor to be loosely
defined at first. If the pipeline were proposed for
construction, ARRC would consult with DNR about trying to design
the pipeline route so that it would not be a problem for the
railroad. She noted it is possible that ARRC would have the
money to survey a centerline sooner. She repeated that the
railroad grade is more sensitive than the grade for a pipeline.
If ARRC can survey a centerline, DNR would try to establish a
buffer from the gas line of at least 100 feet.
SENATOR LINCOLN noted that Ms. Johnson alluded to the fact that
a paper survey could be done fairly soon. She said if that were
the case, the provisions of subsection (g) would apply. She
asked Mr. Loeffler if the state already has some information on
the pipeline corridor so that it is not put into a position of
having to negotiate out of it.
MR. LOEFFLER said when he discussed this with Ms. Johnson; their
goal was to make sure the railroad does not become an impediment
to a gas line. He stated:
That was what we tried to accomplish and what this
language does is say where we know where the gas line
is going to be - if, in fact - if they have a right-
of-way, then they are a valid existing right. But, if
we're considering giving them a right-of-way, and it
turns out that they're taking the best place for a
railroad, then we want to think about it. And if, in
fact, they can move without much cost, then we should
move. But if they can't move without a lot of costs,
then they should stay. But that thought process is
what we want to do. We just want to be able to think
about it.
Now the legal - since we had to put that into language
- 'and thinking about it' - it seems sort of more
ambiguous language, we used the language, 'feasible
and prudent alternative.' And that's pretty standard
language for DNR but it means, really, taking
everything into account including practicality, safety
and economics. If it's better to move the gas line
because it doesn't cost that much then we should move
the gas line. But if it's not better to move the gas
line, then we shouldn't. And that's really what that
language means. It means just think about it, taking
into account alternatives, including economics and
social and things like that. So that's what we use the
language for and when we say think about it that's the
legal standard we put in there. But it is a very
common legal standard for DNR and so I don't,
especially with another state agency such as the
railroad, the court doesn't strike me as a very - it's
unlikely - I hope that to be an unlikely event.
2:00 p.m.
MS. JOHNSON said she may have created a misimpression and
clarified the survey of the centerline is the on-the-ground,
true survey and is not what she expects ARRC to identify soon.
She said what ARRC might be able to provide soon is referred to
in Section 1 of the bill and that is the delineation of a
proposed 500-foot corridor. ARRC is hoping to rely on aerial
photographs and work that has already been done. That will not
be a survey; it will be a broad-brush stroke. She said the
survey of the centerline is not likely to happen very soon.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Loeffler whether DNR has already begun
to look at a corridor for a gas line.
MR. LOEFFLER said it has and has some general alignments.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if it falls within the proposed railroad
route.
MR. LOEFFLER said the railroad has not proposed a route yet.
CHAIR COWDERY said it is his understanding that the word
"survey" does not mean an on the ground survey. It refers to a
plot plan like one would get to build a house. Once the house is
built, an as-built survey would be done. He envisions a paper
survey from satellite photos.
SENATOR LINCOLN noted that Ms. Johnson said the survey alignment
was on the ground.
MS. JOHNSON explained the informal survey that would rely on
satellite imagery and existing data is the one she envisions
ARRC would use to set aside the first description of the full
500-foot corridor. A more specific designation of the centerline
would be necessary to coordinate with a pipeline route. If the
gas line were ready to begin construction before the railroad,
ARRC would need to define a specific corridor for the pipeline
to stay out of. That would probably require a lot of work on the
ground, but not to the point that markers would be set every few
feet.
CHAIR COWDERY said witness posts would be required when a full-
blown survey begins. He pointed out that DNR's fiscal note for
the original bill was very expensive. He did not accept that
fiscal note because this legislation is "too far in the
preliminary stage to put a high fiscal note in."
SENATOR DYSON referred to subsection (b) on page 2 and noted
that the Northern Hemisphere is undergoing significant changes
in subsurface temperatures due to climate change, particularly
in permafrost and ice-rich ground. He asked for comments on
whether it would do any damage to version I to add another
paragraph that said, "minimize the subsurface stability problems
by avoiding, where possible, ice and permafrost rich ground." He
noted that most of that ground has already been surveyed and is
recorded in the literature so it should not be difficult to get
that information. He added that he does not believe item (5),
environmental concerns, would take that into consideration. He
believes environmental concerns would focus on wildlife, grasses
and fish while what he is referring to is a foundation and
stability problem.
SENATOR DYSON said his other concern is that he would be meeting
with his counterparts in Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, and they
are very interested in this project because it can commercialize
a lot of their mineral wealth. He suggested adding "and Yukon
Territory's" to item (8) so that it would read:
...that could contribute significantly to the state's
and Yukon Territory's economic development; and
He said his goal is to create a complementary process so that
Alaska considers what works for the Yukon Territory economically
as the route is determined. He asked for comments.
CHAIR COWDERY pointed out that SB 31 addresses the Alaska
railroad portion, which would terminate at the border.
SENATOR DYSON said if it terminates at the border but there's a
huge field of delicate permafrost right across the border, it is
a dumb idea to not have looked across the border at the
stability of the rail bed. He said it would be foolish to not
take into account the railroad route over the border when
designing Alaska's portion. If the route could be moved north or
south to greatly facilitate Yukon's mineral development with
very little difference in cost, the state would be foolish not
to do so.
CHAIR COWDERY said everyone is in agreement that the object is
to connect this railroad to Fort Nelson, British Columbia. He
suggested changing "Yukon Territory" to "Canada."
SENATOR DYSON was agreeable.
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to Section 42.40.465 on page 6,
which addressed ARRC's ability to acquire an interest in land in
Canada, and thought Senator Dyson's request about citing
benefits to Canada should be placed in that section.
MS. JOHNSON said she agrees with Senator Therriault that it is
more logical to add that consideration to the last paragraph
that deals with Canada. She said Senator Dyson's request is a
reasonable consideration to take into account. She said she did
not catch all of Senator Dyson's concern about foundation and
stability problems, but believes those are good thoughts that
apply both within and outside of Alaska for rail line
consideration. She said that could easily be added as a factor
in subsection (b) on page 2. She pointed out it fleshes out
environmental concerns, but also could be considered as a way to
minimize construction costs.
CHAIR COWDERY asked Senator Dyson to work with his staff to
prepare suggested language to propose as an amendment.
SENATOR OLSON expressed concern about including the Yukon
Territory in this legislation because he understands there is
opposition to the railroad in Canada and including that language
could bring opposition to Alaska's portion of the rail line.
SENATOR DYSON said he would be visiting with Yukon Territory
officials this weekend on that very issue. He said there are
some political processes going on there. Some of the landowners
along the way are not necessarily against the railroad, but are
using it as a bargaining chip to accomplish other motives. He
heard strong support for the rail line from the government
officials and from the groups with mineral interests.
CHAIR COWDERY noted he wrote a letter to the editor that
was published in the Whitehorse newspaper and he received very
positive remarks. He said he has read that support is almost
unanimous in the Yukon Territory. He asked Senator Dyson to
report back to the committee after his meeting.
SENATOR WAGONER asked if there is any reason other than mineral
development and possibly transporting the pipe to build the
pipeline for the extension of the railroad. He noted that he
contacted Linden Transport, which runs a barge from the Lower 48
to Alaska every week. They can't fill the barge and claim there
is no need for rail freight. He expressed concern that the
Legislature should be addressing the long-term benefits of
extending the railroad and who would pay the cost. He said
delineating a corridor is one thing but he wants to know whether
the state would be saddled with the cost of building the rail
line.
CHAIR COWDERY said he also spoke with Linden Transport. He said
that many tourists would use the railroad, but that would be a
small factor. He asked Mr. Schmitz to address the question.
MR. RICHARD SCHMITZ, staff to Senator Cowdery, said Mead
Treadwell from the Northern Forum informed him that the largest
freighters and oil tankers couldn't go through the Panama Canal
so the companies that own the canal are trying to raise billions
of dollars to rebuild it. He pointed out that because of ports
like Seward, Anchorage, and Whittier that are much closer to
Asia, a rail link from Alaska to Halifax could carry freight
faster than if that freight was shipped through the Panama
Canal. He noted that during its first ten years 90 percent of
the first trans-continental railroad freight was made up of
goods being shipped from Asia to Europe. In addition, cruise
ship companies are looking for a circular tour and trains are
very popular.
CHAIR COWDERY said he gave a speech while in Russia a few years
ago and the Russians are concerned that China owns all of the
land on either side of the Panama Canal and that tariffs might
be raised to the point of reducing competitiveness with the East
Coast.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Chair Cowdery, since he intended to
move the bill out of committee today, whether the committee
could deal with the suggested amendments in a conceptual manner.
He pointed out the bill has referrals to two more committees.
CHAIR COWDERY was agreeable.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said, regarding Senator Dyson's concern about
consideration of soil stability, a provision could be added to
item (5) or (7) on page 2. He suggested adding the following
language to item (7), "minimization of probable construction
costs including, but not limited to, steps to avoid areas of
possible instability due to warming soil conditions." He asked
Senator Dyson if that language would meet his concern.
SENATOR DYSON said he would specify, "warming frozen soil
conditions."
TAPE 03-11, SIDE B
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he would move that as conceptual
amendment #1 and restated it as:
On page 2, line 15, item (7) would read"
(7) minimization of probable construction costs
including, but not limited to, steps to avoid areas of
possible instability due to warming frozen soil
conditions.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for unanimous consent.
CHAIR COWDERY announced that without objection, the motion
carried.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said the second amendment would deal with the
issue of showing the Canadians that Alaska is not just
interested in extending the rail line to its border. He proposed
[copying] subsection (b), lines 4 through 9, to Sec. 42.40.465
so that it shows that Alaska is concerned about the same things
in Canada. He suggested making the first part of Sec. 42.40.465
subsection (a).
SENATOR DYSON said that item (8), access to identify natural
resources, is of huge interest to Canadians.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved his second suggestion as a conceptual
amendment and asked for unanimous consent.
SENATOR LINCOLN objected to ask a question. She noted the
purpose of Sec. 42.40.465 is to authorize ARRC to continue to
investigate an extension through Canada. She asked if the
Legislature has to authorize the ARRC board to do that or
whether the board could do that on its own.
CHAIR COWDERY said he believes the Legislature needs to grant
authorization.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if that is because the extension would go
through Canada.
2:27 p.m.
SENATOR THERRIAULT pointed out that the second sentence says the
corporation may acquire land so if ARRC actually moves to do
that, this amendment would give ARRC the same instructions for
consideration on that land.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she understands the suggested amendment but
is questioning the entire section because she did not realize
the Legislature has to give ARRC permission to acquire land. She
pointed out that although the railroad is Alaska-owned the board
is independent.
MS. JOHNSON said she was not sure whether ARRC needs legislative
approval to acquire land outside of the United States and
frankly, when rewriting the bill she left that section as it
was. She said ARRC has broad powers as a corporation in its
corporation act but she does not believe it addresses extra-
territorial rights. She said she believes it does not hurt to
include that section if the Legislature wants ARRC to have that
authority. She said she has one question regarding Senator
Therriault's proposed amendment and asked if the intention is to
move all of subsection (b) on page 2 to page 6 or just to repeat
subsection (b) on page 6.
SENATOR THERRIAULT clarified that his intention is to repeat
that subsection.
SENATOR LINCOLN noted that SB 31 has a further referral to the
Senate Resources Committee where her question could be addressed
so she removed her objection.
SENATOR DYSON said he appreciated Senator Therriault's help on
the amendments, but because Sec. 42.40.465 on page 6 contains
the permissive word "may" instead of "shall" he still has
concern. He believes that ARRC would take into account a route
that would be most beneficial to both the Yukon Territory and
British Columbia, but he would be more comfortable if the word
"may" was changed to "shall." He then asked that the committee
add the words "and Canada's" to item (8) on page 2 before the
words "economic development" so that even if ARRC does not
investigate an extension, it is still required to consider what
might work best for our Canadian neighbors.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said the first amendment was a conceptual
amendment and that subsection (b) on page 2 applies to Alaska.
Subsection (b) on page 6 is directed at Canada. He expects the
legal drafter to change Alaska to Canada.
SENATOR DYSON disagreed and said that because subsection (b) on
page 6 is permissive, ARRC may consider it. He still wants ARRC,
even if it only extends to the border, to consider a route that
is beneficial to our Canadian neighbors if and when it gets
extended. He said he does not want to see a corridor that dead-
ends in Canada and does not consider what might happen if it
extends beyond.
2:33 p.m.
CHAIR COWDERY asked, "What happens in this if we go to the
Canadian border and stop and then the Canadian railroad decides
to come and join ours? Are they living by our rules or? You
know, we hope that would happen but...."
CHAIR COWDERY said what if ARRC gave no consideration to what is
across the border and the railroads end up being 100 miles apart
at the border. He wants ARRC and the Canadian railroad to have
that conversation before.
SENATOR OLSON asked Ms. Johnson how much of the corridor ARRC
anticipates having to declare eminent domain on to acquire land.
MS. JOHNSON said she has no idea at this point. ARRC does not
have enough data about the potential route. She suggested that
Mr. Loeffler might have more information on the land holdings in
that area of the state.
[MR. LOEFFLER was no longer on-line.]
SENATOR OLSON said there is always a fair amount of controversy
associated with eminent domain. He said he shares Senator
Wagoner's concern about encumbering future generations,
especially in light of the fact that this project will require a
vast amount of real estate.
MS. LINDSKOOG told members it is important to note that a
feasibility study has not been done for this project. She noted
that when Governor Murkowski was a member of the U.S. Senate he
had legislation enacted that authorized funding for a bi-lateral
commission. The appointments for that commission have not yet
been filled. That commission would look at a lot of the
questions that members are asking, such as the project's
economic viability and the land issues.
MS. JOHNSON added that ARRC has never exercised the right of
eminent domain. Although it has the statutory power to do so,
ARRC needs the Governor's approval first. She then pointed out
that one of the changes made in Version I was the addition of
language to line 10 on page 1, which says the corridor shall be
at least 500-feet wide except where physical obstacles or
private land ownership patterns make a narrower corridor
appropriate. ARRC may well find a 200 or 300-foot corridor to be
adequate where development has already occurred and land would
have to be condemned.
SENATOR OLSON said the fact that ARRC has never exercised its
power of eminent domain allays some of his fears. He noted
eminent domain could be an abused authority.
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to the language Ms. Johnson cited on
page 1 and noted the corporation has discretion to use those
exceptions. He asked if that discretion language is necessary.
MS. JOHNSON said she believes that ARRC needs to have a bit of
flexibility. It is foreseeable that there would be places that
ARRC would have to negotiate a sale. If federal funding were
involved, there would be controls over those negotiations that
are additional protections for the landowner she added. She said
that ARRC may have to take away some land and if it does not
have the discretion to judge where that is, ARRC would have to
come back to Juneau every time such a situation comes up.
SENATOR OLSON agreed that ARRC would need to have some
discretion so he favors including that language.
SENATOR LINCOLN noted that Senator Torgerson was on record as
being very concerned about giving away the state's mineral
rights. Because she shares his concern and believes that public
access should be protected as well, she advised she would
address those issues in the Senate Resources Committee.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved CSSB 31(TRA) from committee with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal note.
SENATOR LINCOLN objected to ask whether page 6 has been amended.
CHAIR COWDERY said it was.
SENATOR THERRIAULT suggested that he and Senator Dyson get a
look at the committee substitute after it is drafted.
CHAIR COWDERY agreed.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the committee changed Senator Dyson's
request to change page 2.
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted that Senator Dyson is a member of the
Senate Resources Committee.
SENATOR LINCOLN removed her objection.
CHAIR COWDERY announced CSSB 31`(TRA) and attached zero fiscal
note moved from committee with individual recommendations.
There being no further business to come before the committee, he
adjourned the meeting at 2:43 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|