1996-10-21                     House Journal                      Page 4850
HB 342                                                                       
The following letter dated October 4, 1996 was received:                       
                                                                               
Dear Speaker Phillips:                                                         
                                                                               
Under the authority of art. II, sec. 15, of the Alaska Constitution, I         
have vetoed the following bill:                                                
                                                                               
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 342(RES) am S                           
An Act relating to water quality.                                             
                                                                              
Clean water is one of Alaskas most vital assets.  Alaskan families             
deserve and expect that our water will remain clean--for drinking, for         
recreating, for fishing, and for use in our industries.  HB 342 would          
impair the states ability to protect water quality and public health.          
Despite its good intentions, the bill remains confusing, duplicative,          
inflexible, and costly  to implement.  Although some would find                
benefit in some aspects, it would be irresponsible to approve a bill that      
eliminates the states flexibility to protect clean water.  For these           
reasons, I have vetoed HB 342.                                                 
                                                                               
We can develop our resources responsibly while we protect and                  
preserve our water quality.  That balance can be found only through            
a water quality standard setting process which is based upon sound             
science and prudent resources management, and is conducted                     
thoughtfully, collaboratively, and by consensus.  I took the first step        
in this process over a year ago:  a collaborative effort among business        
leaders, environmental group leaders, and the Department of                    
Environmental Conservation resolved a long-standing dispute and a              
legal challenge to several of the states water quality standards.  I have      
recently expanded that effort to form a larger work group to address           
pressing water quality issues concerning permitting, compliance, and           
resource protection.                                                           
                                                                               
                                                                               
I recognize that much effort was invested in trying to make this bill a        
worthwhile piece of legislation.  However, the bill is seriously flawed        
for the following reasons:                                                     
                                                                               
Good standards cannot be developed by simply mandating that                   
federal law should always be the best standard.  HB 342 does not               

1996-10-21                     House Journal                      Page 4851
HB 342                                                                       
allow our standards to be more stringent than the federal governments,         
nor does it allow them to be less stringent.  We must retain our               
flexibility to do what is right for Alaska.  We may need stricter              
standards at times to protect public health or a valuable fishery              
resource.  Conversely, other situations may call for more flexible             
standards.                                                                     
                                                                               
HB 342 is ambiguous.  It adds significant confusion and invites               
litigation.                                                                    
                                                                               
HB 342 duplicates existing processes.  We need to streamline                  
procedures rather than adding bureaucratic hoops.  The                         
requirements added in HB 342 would only decrease efficiency and                
add bureaucracy.                                                               
                                                                               
HB 342 impedes the states ability to assume control of the                    
implementation of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination                 
System (NPDES) program from the Environmental Protection                       
Agency.  Obtaining control of this program would put us in charge              
of Alaskas destiny--a goal shared by many of our industries.  EPA              
has cautioned the state that the provisions in HB 342 would hinder             
our assumption of the program.                                                 
                                                                               
All of these reasons led me to the decision to veto HB 342.  I look to         
all Alaskans to work with me to make our water quality standards               
flexible enough to meet Alaska conditions, but strong enough to                
protect our fish, wildlife, and citizens.                                      
                                                                               
						Sincerely,                                                               
						/s/                                                                      
						Tony Knowles                                                             
						Governor