Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
01/30/2013 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB80 | |
| HB77 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 80-CRUISE SHIP WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS
1:02:51 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the first order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 80, "An Act relating to the regulation of
wastewater discharge from commercial passenger vessels in state
waters; and providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR SADDLER noted that Amendments 6 and 7, distributed at
the committee's 1/28/13 meeting, have been replaced by
amendments 6.1 and 7.1. He requested Representative Tarr to
continue her discussion of Amendment 5, labeled 28-GH1987\A.6,
Nauman, 1/26/13, which she had moved for adoption on 1/28/13 and
to which Representatives Johnson and Hawker, and Co-Chair Feige
had objected.
1:03:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR resumed her discussion of Amendment 5, which
read:
Page 3, following line 22:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 46.03.463(h) is amended to read:
(h) The provisions of (a) - (f), and (i) of this
section do not apply to discharges made for the
purpose of securing the safety of the commercial
passenger vessel or saving life at sea if all
reasonable precautions have been taken for the purpose
of preventing or minimizing the discharge.
* Sec. 6. AS 46.03.463 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(i) Except as provided in (h) of this section or
AS 46.03.462(c), a person may not discharge sewage,
graywater, or other wastewater from a commercial
passenger vessel into the marine waters of the state
that has a copper concentration of more than two parts
per billion for more than 10 minutes with a dilution
factor not greater than 50,000."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said that given the scientific research and
concern about copper levels, Amendment 5 would be appropriate
because it would set in statute a copper level of two parts per
billion (ppb) rather than the current level of three ppb. While
appreciating the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
might prefer doing this in regulation, she said Amendment 5
would give the public peace of mind that the state is doing what
it can to protect its salmon.
1:04:43 PM
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC),
stated DEC has concerns about Amendment 5 because it gets into
the types of very specific permitting conditions and standards
that the department does by regulation and permits. It is not
based on science; DEC's current water quality criteria for
protection of marine aquatic life are based on the most current
science regarding the effects of copper on marine life. She
said the two ppb limit in the amendment is likely based on some
fairly recent studies that identified a two microgram per liter
level that was discussed in studies on salmonids in fresh water
and the behavioral impacts of low levels of copper on the
behavior of the fish. She said the researchers in that study
have indicated that their work is not applicable to the marine
environment, for which there are not yet any studies, because of
the differing buffering capabilities in marine waters and
because researchers have not looked at how the physiological
changes that take place in fish when they move from saltwater to
freshwater. More research is being done in this area, she
continued, and DEC will be look at the latest research again
next year when more information is available. She said DEC does
update its water quality standards when new and better research
drives a change in those standards. Ms. Kent added that
Amendment 5 would essentially prohibit discharges when a vessel
is stationary, and last year only seven vessels were permitted
to discharge while they were stationary. Implementing the
amendment would be difficult because the vessels do not have the
ability to continuously monitor for copper. It is done in a
laboratory setting, so a ship would not know precisely when its
levels dipped below the two ppb. Also, the 10 minute limitation
would be difficult to figure out because the amendment does not
describe how often a vessel could have that 10 minute window to
discharge.
1:07:24 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE recalled Commissioner Hartig stating during his
original presentation that the limits are set by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
MS. KENT confirmed this as correct, adding that for most of its
standards DEC adopts federal developed criteria. In further
response, she confirmed there is an extensive process for
setting those particular limits that includes quite a bit of
review, oversight, and opportunities for entities to weigh in.
She said the standards are set through a significant effort
looking at the toxic effects on a multitude of different types
of organisms and plants. The EPA generally does those studies
or relies on studies done by others and adopts criteria that are
suitable for the country. Alaska normally adopts the criteria
developed by EPA because it does not have the resources to do
that kind of independent study work. Changing Alaska's water
quality criteria is an extensive process that starts with a
public notice asking people to come forward with any new studies
or research that would affect the state's water quality
standards. The department then sifts through that information
to determine whether there is sufficient science to change
criteria and, if so, that is proposed as a regulation change
which also undergoes a public review process. Once that process
is done, and assuming DEC adopts the revised criteria, it must
be approved by EPA before the department can use it.
1:09:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, noting that HB 80 would do away with the
Cruise Ship Wastewater Science Advisory Panel ("Science Advisory
Panel"), inquired how much data and what process would be
necessary for changing the EPA standard, which is set country-
wide for a multitude of plants and animals, to make the state's
regulatory process override for salmon.
MS. KENT answered that the Science Advisory Panel did not look
at the water quality standards to determine whether it thought
them appropriate or protective due to the process required for
revising the standards. However, what DEC would look for
through that public process is peer reviewed scientific research
that is applicable to the standards. So, if the standards look
at chronic effects and acute effects, and if there was research
applicable to marine waters that demonstrated an olfactory
behavioral problem with salmon that could affect their
survivability and reproductive ability, then DEC would rely on
that standard to propose a new water quality criterion. This
new criteria would then go to public review and notice, and then
it would go to EPA for final approval.
1:11:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked how tests are currently conducted for
determining copper levels.
MS. KENT replied DEC requires the cruise companies to test for
copper and the other metals, but it is a sample that is taken
and then transferred to a laboratory for analysis. Over 800
monitoring samples from cruise ships have been taken over the
last 5 years.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired what would have to be done
differently if the standard was changed.
MS. KENT responded the monitoring and analytical requirements
for how a sample is tested would remain the same. If the water
quality standard changed or a permit standard changed - an
effluent limit changed - DEC would compare the results from the
analysis at the laboratory to the permitted amount.
1:12:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he did not understand how copper
levels could be measured if the standard is changed from end of
pipe to a mixing zone while underway, given that the edge of
such a mixing zone cannot be determined.
MS. KENT answered that for any permitted discharge with a mixing
zone, modeling is done to calculate the size of the mixing zone.
This is done in addition to all the other criteria that are
required for DEC to approve a mixing zone. The department looks
at the past data and the concentrations of the contaminant and
employs the same models that are used throughout the country to
look at dispersion of that contaminant in a water body with
certain characteristics. Mixing in the water body, freshwater
lenses, other inputs, currents, and incoming and outgoing tides
are looked at to calculate how big that area might be where the
quality standard would be exceeded based on the level that is
being discharged. Many of DEC's permits with a stationary
component require the permittee to monitor the edge of the
mixing zone to verify those models and, in most cases, the
models are pretty good at predicting the distance needed from
the discharge to meet the water quality standard. For a cruise
ship that is underway with a 50,000:1 dilution, measurements in
the water body would be unable to identify concentrations that
could be attributed to the vessel because of the vast amount of
dilution in such a short period of time.
1:15:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that what is being said is that
the size of the mixing zone will be expanded to whatever
dilution ratio the model indicates is needed for meeting the
water quality standard. So, if science said that copper is
affecting the olfactory sense of salmon, the model would be
changed to double the dilution factor to half the concentration
and therefore the problem has been taken care of.
MS. KENT replied that the requirements for a mixing zone must be
met with every renewal of a permit, most permits being on a
five-year cycle. If a DEC standard changed during the life of a
permit, the permittee would have to demonstrate again all of the
requirements in order to be authorized for a mixing zone; one of
those requirements is that DEC can only authorize a mixing zone
that is as small as practicable. At that permit renewal cycle
DEC would again look at whether a vessel is using the best
technology that it can. So, if a standard changes and becomes
more stringent, that does not automatically mean the vessels
will get a bigger mixing zone.
1:17:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK understood the test uses a dye that is
tracked; however, a concern is that metals may not have the same
floating or mixing properties as dye. He inquired whether
modeling has been done to determine similarity.
MS. KENT qualified she is not a modeling guru, but responded
that DEC generally uses computer models to calculate the mixing
and the dilution of a contaminant in a surface water body. She
suggested that the aforementioned reference is to dye studies
that DEC worked on with EPA, where EPA used a dye to verify that
the dilution was as predicted by the models. She offered her
belief that there was a very close correlation between what was
modeled and what was actually found by those dye studies.
1:18:52 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER noted that the standards proposed in the
amendment of 2 ppb in 10 minutes and [a dilution factor not
greater than] 50,000 are pretty precise. He asked the maker of
the amendment how those numbers were arrived at.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that when she looked through the
Science Advisory Panel's preliminary report, this was an
evidence-based standard that was suggested would be appropriate.
1:19:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired how deep below the water's surface
the modeling goes for a "surface water body."
MS. KENT replied "surface water" is the jargon used for oceans,
rivers, streams - anything that is not ground water. Some of
the state's dischargers, not cruise ships, discharge right at
the bottom, some part way in the column, and so forth. The
model looks at where in the water body is the discharge.
1:20:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether "at the bottom" is the bottom
of the water body or the bottom of the ship.
MS. KENT responded a shore-based facility may have its discharge
pipe anchored to the bottom of the water body. A cruise
vessel's discharge port is approximately a couple meters below
the water surface.
1:20:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR read the following from a scientific article
[Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 22, No. 10, 2003,
"Sublethal Effects of Copper on Coho Salmon: Impacts on
Nonoverlapping Receptor Pathways in the Peripheral Olfactory
Nervous System"][original punctuation provided]:
Collectively, examination of these data indicates that
copper is broadly toxic to the salmon olfactory
nervous system. Consequently, short-term influxes of
copper to surface waters may interfere with olfactory-
mediated behaviors that are critical for the survival
and migratory success of wild salmonids.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR further noted that 49 wastewater violations
occurred between 1999 and 2009 involving discharges of ammonia,
copper, zinc, and a variety of others. To provide a sense of
scale she pointed out that one cruise ship per day generates
21,000 gallons of sewage and 170,000 gallons of wastewater from
sinks, showers, and laundry. So, the volume for 5 ships daily
in Juneau's port is 100,000 gallons of sewage daily and 850,000
gallons daily of wastewater, which is something to be concerned
and careful about.
1:22:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained his objection to Amendment 5.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr and Tuck voted
in favor of Amendment 5. Representatives Seaton, P. Wilson,
Hawker, Johnson, Olson, Feige, and Saddler voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 5 failed by a vote of 2-7.
1:23:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to adopt Amendment 6.1, labeled 28-
GH1987\A.8, Nauman, 1/28/13, which read:
Page 1, line 4, through page 2, line 9:
Delete all material.
Page 2, line 10:
Delete "Sec. 2"
Insert "Section 1"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 25, through page 3, line 5:
Delete all material and insert:
* Sec. 2. AS 46.03.462(e) is amended to read:
(e) When issuing, reissuing, renewing, or
modifying a permit required under (a)(1) of this
section, the department may include effluent limits or
standards less stringent than those required under
(b)(1) of this section [FOR NOT MORE THAN THREE YEARS
DURATION] if the department finds that a permittee is
using economically feasible methods of pollution
prevention, control, and treatment the department
considers to be the most technologically effective in
controlling all wastes and other substances in the
discharge but is unable to achieve compliance with
Alaska Water Quality Standards at the point of
discharge. A permit under this subsection may not
extend beyond December 31, 2020.
Page 3, line 6:
Delete "new subsections"
Insert "a new subsection"
Page 3, lines 13 - 22:
Delete all material.
Page 3, line 23:
Delete "46.03.462(f),"
Objection was voiced by Representatives Johnson and Hawker.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated she has been trying to find a way to
strike a balance between the cruise ship industry and protecting
Alaska's coastal waters and the coastal economies and fishing
industry that rely on those waters. She said she has offered a
number of amendments in the hope of meeting her comfort level,
which has not happened. She said Amendment 6.1 would allow the
cruise ship industry to continue working on meeting the water
quality standards set in the 2006 Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative
("2006 Initiative"). Amendment 6.1 would extend the compliance
period to December 31, 2020, allowing DEC to issue a 5-year
permit and extend it all the way through 2020, allowing the
copper issue to be revisited.
1:24:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER maintained his objection to Amendment 6.1.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, Tarr, and
Tuck voted in favor of Amendment 6.1. Representatives Hawker,
Johnson, Olson, P. Wilson, Feige, and Saddler voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 6.1 failed by a vote of 3-6.
1:25:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to adopt Amendment 7.1, labeled 28-
GH1987\A.9, Nauman, 1/28/13, which read:
Page 2, line 25, through page 3, line 5:
Delete all material and insert:
* Sec. 3. AS 46.03.462(e) is repealed and reenacted
to read:
"(e) When issuing, reissuing, renewing, or
modifying a permit required under (a)(1) of this
section, the department may only include the
authorization of a mixing zone for a commercial
passenger vessel if
(1) that vessel employs an advanced
wastewater treatment system that falls within the
class of systems identified by the department under
(k) of this section or employs other means of
pollution prevention, control, and treatment that the
department finds can achieve a quality of effluent
that is comparable to that of one or more vessels
employing an advanced wastewater treatment system; and
(2) the permit prohibits the discharge of
untreated sewage, treated sewage, graywater, or other
wastewater within three geographical miles of the
coastline of the state unless a discharge is made for
the purpose of securing the safety of the commercial
passenger vessel or saving life at sea and all
reasonable precautions have been taken for the purpose
of preventing or minimizing the discharge; in this
paragraph, "coastline" has the meaning given to "coast
line" in 43. U.S.C. 1301."
Page 3, following line 6:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(i) Under (e)(1) of this section, if a
commercial passenger vessel employs an advanced
wastewater treatment system that satisfies the
requirements of (e)(1) of this section, the department
shall find the commercial passenger vessel satisfies
all state technology-based treatment requirements for
authorization of a mixing zone."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 3, line 15:
Delete "(e)"
Insert "(e)(1)"
Objection was voiced by Representatives Johnson, Hawker, and
Olson.
1:26:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that if mixing zones are going to
be allowed he would like to ensure that those zones are three
geographical miles away from the coastline where a lot of human,
plant, and mammal activity occurs. He said he did not propose a
farther distance because that would eliminate any discharge
within waters controlled by the State of Alaska. He shared that
California has implemented no mixing zones within three miles of
its entire coastline, a standard he thinks Alaska should have.
However, he did not want to jump into that standard right away
because the ships might not have holding tanks that would allow
them to go out that far.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out that because of the shape of
Alaska's coastline, three miles might create a "donut hole," or
gap, where ships would go to dump, creating excessive dumping in
one spot. Therefore, he moved to amend line 13 of Amendment 7.1
by deleting "three" and inserting "two" geographical miles.
There being no objection, the amendment to the amendment was
adopted.
1:28:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that Amendment 7.1, as amended,
would permit the discharge of wastewater that did not meet water
quality standards.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK confirmed that this is correct.
1:28:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how big the holding tanks are and
how far from the coastline do these tanks allow the ships to go.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER requested Ms. Kent to address the practical
effects of Amendment 7.1, as amended.
MS. KENT replied she does not have that data with her, but of
the 28 or so large cruise ships that register to come to Alaska,
10 do not discharge in Alaska waters. These 10 ships either go
outside [state waters] or discharge in a port facility. The
rest have the holding capacity to go into outside waters. In
further response, she confirmed that shore-based facilities have
less stringent discharge requirements than do the cruise ships;
therefore any cruise ship wastewater going through a shore-based
facility would not be treated to as high a degree and would not
be as clean in terms of the effluent.
1:30:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired why, then, would cruise ships
be allowed to discharge into municipal facilities. She surmised
it would be better to allow the ships to discharge where they
are at.
MS. KENT responded DEC regulates the discharge from facilities,
not who can discharge into a facility. Right now, DEC does not
prohibit a cruise ship from discharging to a municipal
wastewater treatment system.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out that the ship's wastewater would
be treated in the municipal wastewater treatment system instead
of untreated wastewater from the ship being discharged [into the
ocean].
MS. KENT added that the wastewater is treated at the municipal
system, but the level of treatment it receives at the municipal
treatment system is not as good as it would be if it were
treated through the advanced wastewater treatment system onboard
the cruise ship.
1:32:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that California has no mixing zones as
well as no discharge in its coastal waters. She related that
even treated sewage can contain pathogens, nutrients, and other
contaminants that affect human and environmental health and
economic productivity.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that Amendment 7.1, as amended, is an
attempt to work with the industry. He wants the cruise ships to
be efficient with their cruises and does not want them to have
to skip port facilities, so he is trying to ease into having no
mixing zones close to shore. He added that with stationary port
facilities the location is known, measurements can be taken, and
location of the edges is known, whereas testing is not accurate
for moving ships. He said there is a big difference between a
traveling city and a stationary city; salmon can navigate around
a stationary area. An easy solution would be allowing cruise
ships to dump into municipal facilities where there is control.
1:34:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr and Tuck voted
in favor of Amendment 7.1, as amended. Representatives Johnson,
Olson, Seaton, P. Wilson, Hawker, Feige, and Saddler voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 7.1 failed by a vote of 2-7.
1:35:25 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced the bill is now before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said HB 80 concerns him for several
reasons, one being overlapping mixing zones from numerous ships
using the same area for mixing zones. He said the 2006
Initiative stimulated DEC and the industry to go through a
process of reducing toxins being put into Alaska's waters. The
mixing zones will not be monitored and individual vessels will
again be able to be lax like they were in the past, resulting in
more toxic discharge and cumulative discharge in Alaska's
waters. Amendment 2 [labeled 28-GH1987\A.3, Nauman, 1/26/13],
which he put forward [on 1/28/13] and which did not pass, was
significant in that it would have disallowed mixing zone cruise
ship discharges in legislatively designated state critical
habitat areas. While DEC has said it wants the ability to make
that decision on its own, the decision is not the question. The
question is whether the legislature is going to give its
authority over to the administration to administratively make
the decision to allow cruise ship mixing zone discharges into
critical habitat. While he will not vote against moving the
bill from committee, he said the bill does not have his support
at this time for the aforementioned reasons. Additionally,
extension of the current permit to allow science to catch up may
have accomplished the stringent control of pollutants in state
waters that was expressed in the 2006 Initiative.
1:38:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether HB 80 would lower the
state's standards.
MS. KENT replied, "No."
1:39:31 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE said the cruise ship industry has been operating
for about three years under a general permit that allows ships
to discharge, but never once during discussion of the bill were
any instances brought up as to actual problems with discharges
while operating under this general permit. Arguments against
the bill were not, in his opinion, convincing-enough scientific
evidence to warrant any changes in the bill as presented.
Regarding overall philosophy, he recounted that while he was
training to be a military officer, the mantra was to never make
a rule that cannot be enforced. The corollary here is to never
make a rule that cannot be achieved. The scientific panel
appointed by the legislature delivered a report saying that the
advanced wastewater treatment systems are the best economically
feasible technology available today and, more than likely, in
the near future. The DEC is capable of tracking emerging
technology, and for the time being the advanced wastewater
treatment systems will satisfy the legislature's requirement
that the state's waters stay as pristine as possible yet still
allow commerce and tourism activity to continue. He said he
will therefore be voting in favor of the bill.
1:41:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER stated that passage of HB 80 will free up
resources, therefore the bill should have a negative, rather
than a zero, fiscal note. He asked for there to be truth in
budgeting when resources are freed up; for example, DEC
indicated earlier that the freed-up resources will be put to
work doing something else. He requested that the department ask
for resources when it needs to accomplish something else and
that its fiscal notes reflect relinquished resources.
1:43:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he is concerned about backsliding on
what the public put forth [in the 2006 Initiative]. A balance
can be achieved between the cruise industry and keeping Alaska's
waters pristine and good for coastal economies, recreation, and
public health. Fifteen violations occurred in 2011 and he wants
to ensure the state helps the industry reach the standards so
there are no violations. Because this was the goal of the
Science Advisory Panel, he is disheartened to see it go away.
While the state does not want to have a rule that cannot be
achieved, the state must also have a vision and must also set
goals. He recalled reading about a patent officer who, in the
late 1800s or early 1900s, stated that the patent office might
as well be closed because everything that can be invented is
already invented. Engineering is only getting better and today
miniaturization is driving economies, and this applies to the
cruise ship wastewater treatment systems and their wastewater
holding tanks. Some of the amendments were achievable, he said,
and he is concerned about giving DEC the flexibility to allow
mixing zones in critical habitat areas. No dumping at all is
allowed in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, yet the
newspaper reported that the [water from] four swimming pools was
dumped into Glacier Bay. He said he will not be supporting the
bill because it does not set goals and work with the industry to
get there, and is a step backwards.
1:46:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated she will not be supporting the bill
at this time. As someone with a science background it is
disappointing to her. She recalled that things used to be
regulated under the saying that the solution to pollution is
dilution. Regulation has long since moved on from that, so this
is a terrible step backwards. In addition to the violations in
2011, there were 32 wastewater violations in 2009. Alaska
should be encouraging new developments, but now it will not keep
its status as a leader. In five years Alaska will have missed
the boat for protecting salmon. She offered her hope that the
legislature will not be looking back on this and regretting its
move today. Steps should have been taken to at least extend the
compliance period to continue working on this.
1:47:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said nothing more can be done than what
is currently being done. Additionally, the annual cost of about
$100,000 for the Science Advisory Panel would continue for an
undetermined amount of time. She said she feels justified in
voting yes because the standards are not being lowered, nothing
more can be done at this point in time, and general fund monies
could be used for something else, especially given that the
state is $400 million short.
1:49:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that California's solution to a
problem with permitting is to just say no rather than working
through it and allowing industry to find a solution. He does
not want to be compared to California and he does not want
Alaska to be a state that just says no. He wants Alaska to be a
state that continues to work with industry so that maybe the
state can turn off the "not open for business" sign that seems
to have been placed at its borders.
1:50:14 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved to report HB 80 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying [zero] fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Johnson, Olson,
Seaton, P. Wilson, Hawker, Feige, and Saddler voted in favor of
HB 80. Representatives Tarr and Tuck voted against it.
Therefore, HB 80 was reported out of the House Resources
Standing Committee by a vote of 7-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB80 Amendment 1.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Amendment 2.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Amendment 3.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Amendment 4.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Amendment 5.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Amendment 6.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Amendment 7.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB36 Clean Water Act Overview.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 DMVA Letter.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 DoD Environmental Region 10 Letter.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 Fiscal Note DEC.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 Version A.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 77 Briefing Paper 1 29 13.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 HRES Hearing Request Memo.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Permitting Reform Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Sectional Analysis 1.30.13.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB0077.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB0077-1-2-011813-DNR-N.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB0077-2-2-011813-DFG-N.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB77 Water briefing points.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB77 HRES - Overview by Comm. Sullivan.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB80 Franklin Dock Ent. Letter.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Village of Kake Letter.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB 80 DEC Response to CCTHITA 2.6.13.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |