Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/30/1998 02:25 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 28
"An Act repealing the Alaska Coastal Management Program
and the Alaska Coastal Policy Council, and making
conforming amendments because of those repeals."
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the Committee received work
draft 0-LS0189\T, 3/26/98 on 3/27/98.
Representative Davies questioned why coastal resource
districts are prohibited from incorporating by reference
state statutes and administrative regulations.
Co-Chair Therriault explained that state statutes and
regulations change. Districts are supposed to justify their
plans independently of state statutes and regulations. When
the statutes and regulations are the same, but
interpretation differs, the issue becomes who should
interpret the statutes and regulations.
DIANE MAYER, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION, OFFICE OF
THE GOVERNOR observed that the Coastal Policy Council Review
identified this area for amendment as the result of an
assessment. The assessment was completed at the end of
1996. They recommended that local coastal district programs
not repeat state laws or regulations by reference. Two
versions would exist if regulation referenced in a local
plan were changed by the agency. The state would have a new
version and the local district would have the old version.
By definition coastal districts receive deference in
interpreting their plans. Since the local district has
deference they would define state law. The Council felt
that the agency should be given deference on the
interpretation of state regulations, unless the district
demonstrated unique expertise. Districts argue points
relating to state laws or regulations based on their level
of professional expertise.
Representative Davies stressed that it is useful to adopt
statutes by reference in order to keep local requirements
current. He stressed that a coastal district may want to
have a definition in their plan that is consistent with
statute.
Ms. Mayer observed that there is one statewide coastal
management plan. Districts amend the plan for the
uniqueness of their area.
Co-Chair Therriault interjected that state statutes and
regulations form the base. Local areas are supposed to
bring an additional level of scrutiny.
Ms. Mayer agreed that local areas bring an additional look
of coastal resource uses and values from their perspective.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Ms.
Mayer referred to seafood discharges from a seafood
processing plant in the Aleutians. The discharge
requirements are governed by the state's water quality
standard. The Department of Environmental Conservation
defines the mixing zone. Coastal districts can enhance
protections from the discharge. Standards would have to
relate to unique values or uses in the area of the
discharge. If state and local plans had the same numbers
they would be arguing over interpretation.
Ms. Mayer noted that when local districts are at the table
they have the ability to discuss what is on the table and
bring in their unique view.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Ms.
Mayer observed that the Department of Environmental
Conservation defines mixing zone standards. A district
would have to have specific and acknowledged professional
expertise in the subject to address the need to reduce
concentrations. A compelling argument could be made based
on a traditional use of the area that needs to be protected.
If differences were maintained at the regional level it
would be brought to the director or commissioner level for a
policy call.
Representative Davies argued that there might be reasons to
adopt a state standard in a local plan. Ms. Mayer pointed
out that if the State has a definition or rule that the
local district wants to be operative, that it would be
operative. The prohibition is against incorporation of
state statutes or regulations into their policy. There can
be a reference section in the back to reference a state law
or regulation, "for purposes of discussion."
Ms. Mayer explained that values are defined through public
review and approval. She emphasized that the intent is not
to make the process less efficient. In response to a
question by Co-Chair Therriault, Ms. Mayer clarified that
the assessment by the Coastal Policy Council was conducted
over a year and a half.
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on
file). He explained that the amendment further defines
"coastal waters". Amendment 1 would clarify that "coastal
water" means a water body in the coastal area, including
wetlands and the intertidal area."
SARA FISHER-GOOD, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT referred
to section 4, page 4, subsection (B). Co-Chair Therriault
observed that the legislation defines "coastal waters" as
"adjacent to tidal shorelines and that contains a measurable
quantity or percentage or sea water." He questioned why a
consistency determination should be required on a lake that
has no outflow. He stressed that the intent is to protect
coastal waters.
Representative Davies pointed out that birds that nest in
salt-water marshes sometimes travel a little inland.
Ms. Fisher-Good noted that the definition is a compromise
from the original proposal to shrink the coastal zone to the
zone of direct influence or interaction. The intent is to
allow boundaries to remain, but restrict the coastal
district's action relating to activities beyond the coastal
boundary. Consistency determinations would only be allowed
if the user activity has a direct and significant impact on
coastal waters. The intent is to have a strict definition
of coastal waters.
Ms. Mayer explained that the legislation would allow a
definition determination on salt water. She emphasized that
districts expanded boundaries to pick up anadromous fish
values and demonstrate an effect on the streams. She
recalled that the sponsor indicated that he would let the
expanded boundaries stand as long as reviews in expanded
areas were limited to effects in the streams. The
legislation currently restricts consideration to salt
waters. She maintained that the fish values, that the
program was designed to protect, are missing. She noted
that Amendment 1 would pick up the stream channels.
Co-Chair Therriault asserted that any activity in the stream
areas that require state permits would have public input.
State permits are designed to protect the ability of the
stream to act as a rearing area for anadromous fish.
Ms. Mayer stressed that the coastal management process
brings local knowledge and understanding. Districts and
their policies are brought to the table by consistency
determinations. She stressed that the issue is "letting
coastal management work in the area for which we have
defined the coastal boundary, to make it work."
Co-Chair Therriault noted that coastal districts could still
participate in the public process for the issuance of
permits. Ms. Mayer stressed that the coastal program
envisions that coastal districts would have standing in
those project reviews based on the policy in their plan that
may apply. She explained that the relationship of local
management to state management is analogous to the state
having a higher standard than the federal government.
Representative Davis spoke in support of the inclusion of
anadromous streams. He observed that the legislation makes
anadromous streams insignificant. Ms. Mayer noted that
Alaska's coastal program is broad.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Davies
OPPOSED: Davis, Foster, Martin, Therriault
Co-Chair Hanley and Representatives Kelly, Kohring, Moses
and Mulder were absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-4).
Ms. Fisher-Good reviewed the fiscal note by the Office of
the Governor, Governmental Coordination. The fiscal note
requests $345 thousand dollars. It includes $5 thousand
dollars for program implementation; $10 thousand dollars for
required regulations; $100 thousand dollars for boundary
amendments; and $230 thousand dollars to remove reference to
statutes or regulations by reference. The Department of
Law's fiscal note is for $33.4 thousand dollars. She
recommended that the Department of Law's fiscal note be
zero. The Department of Law receives a universal service
agreement through the Division of Governmental Coordination.
She maintained that local districts should be able to
incorporate changes with their existing grants. She
observed that $93 thousand dollars in additional federal
dollars would be available as a Governor's budget amendment
for the Division of Governmental Coordination. She
recommended that the Division's fiscal note be reduced to
$58.4 thousand dollars. This would incorporate the
Department of Law's fiscal note. The Division would have
the flexibility to distribute the funding to other agencies.
(Tape Change, HFC 98 - 82, Side 2)
Ms. Fisher-Good maintained that the $93 thousand dollar
budget amendment along with $10 thousand dollars included in
the fiscal note would be sufficient to cover boundary
amendments.
Representative Martin MOVED to report CSHB 28 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying amended fiscal notes.
Representative Grussendorf OBJECTED.
Representative Grussendorf expressed concern that the
legislation is not supported by any of the affected
municipalities. He questioned why the program is being
amended. He emphasized that communities in his district
support the program in its current version.
Co-Chair Therriault stressed that passage of the legislation
maintains a functional program. He asserted that the
program is not being gutted. He stressed that the right of
municipalities to participate is maintained.
Representative Davis acknowledged improvements to the
legislation. He noted his intent to work toward further
improvement. Co-Chair Therriault assured him that he would
continue to work with the Division and members to address
concerns.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to move CSHB 28
(FIN) from Committee.
IN FAVOR: Davis, Foster, Kelly, Martin, Mulder, Therriault
OPPOSED: Moses, Grussendorf, Davies
Co-Chair Hanley and Representative Kohring were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-3).
CSHB 28 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with four zero fiscal notes, one by the
Department of Administration, one by the Department of
Community and Regional Affairs, one by the Department of
Environmental Conservation; and one by the Department of
Fish and Game, and a fiscal impact note by the Office of the
Governor.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|