Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
05/03/2019 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB43 | |
| HB138 | |
| HB116 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 43 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 116 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 138-NATIONAL RESOURCE WATER DESIGNATION
1:26:47 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 138, "An Act requiring the designation of
state water as outstanding national resource water to occur in
statute; relating to management of outstanding national resource
water by the Department of Environmental Conservation; and
providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN stated that this is the bill's second hearing
before the committee and that at the first hearing the committee
took invited and public testimony. He said the co-chairs do not
intend to move the bill out of committee today.
1:27:18 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN closed public testimony on HB 138.
1:27:27 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN noted that the following questions were posed
by committee members at the bill's first hearing: 1) how other
states designate Tier 3 waters and its impacts to local
municipalities; 2) whether the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) currently has the authority to designate Tier
3 waters, and 3) how other states designate Tier 3 waters. He
directed attention to the following documents in the committee
packet: a legal memorandum regarding designating a Tier 3
waterbody by ballot measure, a memorandum from DEC on how other
states designate Tier 3 waters, and a [legal] memorandum
regarding the [current] statutory authority of DEC to designate
Tier 3 waters.
1:27:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 138, said the aforementioned memorandums should answer the
committee's questions.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:29:12 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN inquired whether Ms. Currie of the Department
of Law (DOL) could describe the legal memorandums.
JENNIFER CURRIE, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Environmental Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of
Law (DOL), replied that those are not her memorandums and it
might be more appropriate for Legislative Legal Services to
introduce them.
CO-CHAIR TARR said the committee would like to go over the same
two things with the DOL that are in the legislative legal memos
because at the first hearing there were some points of
disagreement and the committee wants to ground truth it with
DOL. Regarding the first issue of whether a designation could
take place through a citizen initiative, she related that Alaska
Legal Services says no because of the common property resource
allocation issue. In regard to the second issue of whether DEC
currently has the authority to designate [Tier 3 waters], she
related that according to Legislative Legal Services, the
department does have that authority. She requested the DOL's
response or the administration's position on those two matters.
1:30:46 PM
MS. CURRIE addressed whether HB 138, as written, would prohibit
initiatives from being filed with respect to designation of Tier
3 waters. She responded:
Legislation doesn't have the ability to cut off ...
the right to file an initiative. And so the
Department of Law plays an integral role in deciding
whether or not an initiative is an appropriation. And
at this point, we're not in a position to adjudicate a
hypothetical situation where a Tier 3 might be ...
brought forward through initiative, but I wouldn't say
that it cuts off the opportunity.
1:31:51 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR drew attention to the memorandum in the committee
packet dated May 1, 2019, from Emily Nauman, Deputy Director,
Legislative Legal Services, regarding Outstanding National
Resource Water: Initiative. She read aloud the first two
paragraphs on page 1, which state [original punctuation
provided]:
You asked whether, if HB 138 passed, the law would
preclude designation of outstanding national resource
water by initiative.
The short answer is, under the recent Alaska Supreme
1
Court holding in Mallott v. Stand for Salmon, an
initiative probably could not be used to designate
outstanding national resource water without violating
art. XI, sec. 7 of the Constitution of the State of
Alaska, regardless of whether HB 138 passes.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked whether Ms. Currie is saying that the DOL's
position is that that is incorrect.
MS. CURRIE answered, "I would say that the Department of Law's
position is that whether or not it was an appropriation would
depend on the facts of the initiative itself and we're not
prepared to offer an opinion about whether every Tier 3 water
designation brought by initiative would be an appropriation."
1:32:49 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN offered his understanding that, if the question
is set aside of whether a Tier 3 waterbody can be designated by
ballot initiative, the main underlying point is that any sort of
statutory change wouldn't have an impact on the ability for
citizen-led initiatives to take place.
MS. CURRIE replied, "I believe that's correct."
1:33:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN recounted Ms. Currie's statement that Ms.
Currie was unclear as to whether all ballot initiatives that
would do Tier 3 designation would be found unconstitutional.
She requested Ms. Currie to elaborate on the circumstances for
why some would and some would not.
MS. CURRIE responded:
I believe that the individual circumstances of a Tier
3 designation would or could affect whether or not the
Department of Law would determine that it was an
appropriation or not. And so I think that we can't
wholeheartedly say, as [Legislative Legal Services]
has, that it's likely that every initiative brought to
designate a Tier 3 would be an appropriation.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said that that is the point she is
confused by. She requested a hypothetical example of how one
designation could be an appropriation and another one wouldn't
be an appropriation.
MS. CURRIE answered she is hesitant to do that because the
Department of Law has a distinct role in determining whether or
not an initiative is an appropriation or not. So, she
continued, she wouldn't want to opine about that without
something concrete being proposed.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated she is unsure of what would be the
legal factors that would determine whether or not it is an
appropriation. She asked whether it would depend on the size of
the river, the acreage impacted, the number of people affected,
the cost, or the amount of the legal taking.
MS. CURRIE replied that she thinks all of those things could be
factors. She said she also thinks that technology, geography,
and many other things could come into the equation.
1:36:28 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR remarked that this is very confusing and said the
committee had hoped to work through these details. She
requested Ms. Currie's reaction to page 2, first paragraph, of
Ms. Nauman's May 1, 2019, legal memo, which states in part
[original punctuation provided]:
The department has described the standard; "if a water
were to be designated by the state as a Tier 3 water,
new or increased discharges that would lower or
degrade the existing water quality would not be
6
allowable unless they were temporary or limited."
Because this standard would likely completely prevent
the legislature from permitting projects that result
in the permanent destruction of outstanding national
resource water, a court is likely to find that an
initiative nominating outstanding national resource
7
water constitutes an unconstitutional appropriation.
MS. CURRIE responded that she disagrees. She continued, "I
disagree that there is a way to categorically say that, without
having a specific river to consider."
CO-CHAIR TARR stated it is interesting to have two conflicting
thoughts on this. She said she wants to ensure that there is
always an opportunity for citizen participation, whichever route
the legislature chooses. This is a challenge, she continued,
given [Legislative Legal Services] says that at least through
this process that wouldn't be a way for the citizens to
participate, but Ms. Currie is saying that it depends. She
inquired whether Ms. Currie could look at the current five
nominations and evaluate those.
MS. CURRIE answered she thinks it would be inappropriate for the
Department of Law to opine on the rivers that have been proposed
when they haven't been proposed by initiative, because if they
were to come by initiative and DOL were to have already offered
an opinion that would be prejudicial.
CO-CHAIR TARR offered her appreciation for Ms. Currie's answer.
1:39:57 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:40 p.m. to 1:46 p.m.
1:46:16 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN brought attention to the memorandum in the
committee packet dated May 2, 2019, from Emily Nauman, Deputy
Director, Legislative Legal Services, regarding the statutory
authority of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
to designate Outstanding National Resource Water (ONRW). He
read aloud page 2, paragraph 2, first sentence, which states
[original punctuation provided]:
Ultimately, I believe it is likely a court would find
that the department has the statutory authority to
designate or manage a water as an ONRW.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked Ms. Currie if she has read this memo.
MS. CURRIE replied she looked at the documents available to her
two hours ago, but this memorandum was not among them. She said
she has since looked at the memo briefly, but hasn't had a
chance to go into it in depth.
1:47:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN drew attention to the memorandum in the
committee packet dated May 3, 2019, from Earl Crapps, Department
of Environmental Conservation (DEC), regarding a review of other
states' approach to Tier 3. She read aloud from the last
sentence in the memo, which states [original punctuation
provided]:
Currently, the department is aware of four states:
Idaho, Indiana, Maine and Montana, where the authority
for Tier 3 designation resides with the Legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether in any of those four
states it is exclusively a legislative designation or whether
there is a process that those legislatures must use to make that
determination.
1:47:57 PM
EARL CRAPPS, Manager, Domestic and Industrial Utilities Section,
Wastewater Discharge Authorization Program, Division of Water,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), responded that
for those four states it is not exclusive, there is a process
before legislative approval.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN presumed the process isn't the same in
each of the four states and requested Mr. Crapps to describe the
process for each state prior to a legislative designation.
MR. CRAPPS answered that for the most part in general there is
an agency, board, or commission review before those nominations
are then forwarded to the legislature for final approval.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether those legislatures are
looking at a score and an evaluation that are done for
designation by an agency, board, or commission. She further
asked whether receiving a certain score is required to pursue
the designation or whether the legislature has total latitude
regardless of what the agency, board, or commission recommends.
MR. CRAPPS offered his understanding that the legislature has
the latitude regardless of what is provided to it.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired as to the consistency of
complying with the recommendations given to the legislatures in
those states.
MR. CRAPPS replied it would be widely varied. For example, he
continued, Idaho is one of the four states identified and
Idaho's legislature has not yet designated a Tier 3 water.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked how long Idaho has had its process
in place.
MR. CRAPPS responded it varies by state and he will have to
provide that information to the committee at a later date.
1:50:57 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR referenced the May 2, 2019, Legislative Legal
Services memorandum, and stated that there is conflicting
information as to whether DEC can currently do this and whether
the legislation is necessary. She asked whether the
administration has a position on that.
MS. CURRIE answered that DOL's position is that it isn't as
clear a conclusion as the memorandum would present. The reason,
she said, is that the designation of a Tier 3 water contains
many other factors besides water quality and purity, which is
what DEC was delegated authority to make decisions on. Because
of that, she continued, DOL thinks it is unclear as to whether
DEC currently has the authority to do those designations.
1:52:23 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN stated there is a need for more time to review
the information. He said the Alaska Municipal League (AML) has
prepared a presentation for today in response to the committee's
questions at the bill's first hearing [on 4/29/19].
1:52:53 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR related that the bill as originally introduced in
the other body [SB 51] was supported by the administration. In
[SB 51], she continued, designation had to be reviewed by three
departments and then go to the legislature for approval. She
posed a scenario in which there would be an opportunity for
agency designation or legislative approval and pointed out that
in this scenario citizens could go to the legislature if they
believed an agency was being unresponsive. She asked whether
the Department of Law has a position or thoughts on the idea of
this kind of a dual process.
MS. CURRIE replied she would have to see the wording of any
amendment and does not have an opinion one way or the other.
1:54:18 PM
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), explained that his PowerPoint presentation titled "Tier 3
Designation Impacting Community Development" is a follow-up to
his 4/29/19 testimony on HB 138. Turning to slide 2, he said
his starting point is similar to the Department of Law's in
regard to "adjudicate hypotheticals," in that AML is being asked
"to determine ... what that impact looks like for a community
without that community and that question in front us." He said
the bill, as he understands it, is to determine whether the
legislature is the appropriate body to make decisions related to
Tier 3 designations. Separately and differently, it is not
about whether an actual Tier 3 designation has impact or value
or what those would be, he continued.
MR. ANDREASSEN stated he is basing a lot of his understanding on
the work done by DEC and that slide 3 is a snapshot of a number
of DEC documents related to Tier 3 designation. He said the
first statement is the starting point and read it aloud: "If a
water were to be designated by the state as a Tier 3 water, new
or increased discharges that would lower or degrade the existing
water quality would not be allowable unless they were temporary
or limited." This impacts communities in many different ways,
he continued, and across the board across the state.
1:56:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said it is pretty well known that the
legislature has the ultimate decision making authority to use
specific public assets for specific purposes. He asked whether
what is being reviewed today is that the legislature does have
that authority.
MR. ANDREASSEN replied that that is his understanding of the
bill's intent. He said the question asked of him was the
municipal impact, or the relationship between municipalities and
local governments and HB 138.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN related that there was a question at the bill's
first hearing on the impacts to municipalities for different
types of projects and that Mr. Andreassen had agreed to follow
up with answers to those questions.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK drew attention to the first bullet point on
slide 2, which states: "The question raised by HB138 is whether
the Legislature is best-suited to determine impact ...." He
said he thinks the legislature has the ultimate decision just
naturally and by the state's constitution. He noted he was
unsure whether it was this issue that would be reviewed today or
the impact on municipalities.
1:57:48 PM
MR. ANDREASSEN moved to slide 4 and resumed his presentation.
He said the roles of municipalities are many and so he looked at
the 165 cities and boroughs that are members of AML that are
incorporated as cities or boroughs, or as political subdivisions
of the state, and examined their intersection with water. He
reported that 112 municipalities have the power to manage their
water systems, 111 have the power to manage and have
responsibility for sewer and wastewater, 72 have adopted the
power to manage their ports and harbors, 109 have adopted the
power to manage their landfills and solid and hazardous waste,
108 have adopted powers related to road construction and
maintenance, and 2 have adopted powers related to flood control.
Each of these intersects with a Tier 3 designation, he pointed
out. However, he added, it is not across the board in terms of
how municipalities have adopted powers - only 12 local
governments have no powers related to any of these, so 7 percent
aren't responsible in a way that intersects with a Tier 3
designation, and 93 percent of city and borough governments in
the state would potentially be affected by Tier 3 designation.
Additionally, he noted, AML's understanding is that fish waste
or processing facilities and other things upon which communities
might depend as a tax base could be impacted, as well as gravel
pits for local infrastructure, road construction, and building
materials. Further, he added, there are questions around barge
traffic or fuel delivery to the extent that they are not
temporary impacts.
1:59:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether AML looked at the five
current nominations for rivers and how many municipalities or
organized governments those intersect with.
MR. ANDREASSEN responded he has a forthcoming slide that will
address that.
2:00:10 PM
MR. ANDREASSEN continued his presentation and addressed slides
5-7. He said he looked at the Village Safe Water program, which
addresses other communities beyond incorporated cities that
might have water and wastewater needs, and that the slides
depict the priority projects listed within the program. He
pointed out that a number of communities are waiting on first
service or upgrades to service, both of which could potentially
add to discharge related to waterbodies. So, he said, it is
incredibly significant to incorporated cities and boroughs and
communities around the state, including those that are still
waiting for water and wastewater management. He suggested that
this is probably something better for DEC to follow up on in the
future as HB 138 is further considered.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether first service means the
village currently has no municipal or local government water
service and therefore individual homeowners would be using honey
buckets or would have septic systems or wells of their own.
MR. ANDREASSEN answered that that is his understanding. He
added, "It might be less that there is no municipal service or
there is no service in that community, or that there is an
expansion of service in the community different than an upgrade
to those facilities."
2:02:23 PM
MR. ANDREASSEN turned to slide 8 and discussed the communities
that could be potentially impacted by the current nominations
for Tier 3 designation. He qualified he doesn't have the [five]
Tier 3 nominations in front of him, but that the communities on
slide 8 are near to, or related to, nominated waterbodies. He
said the slide illustrates the different types of communities
(different powers, obligations, and responsibilities) related to
any one waterbody. He qualified he doesn't have a clear picture
of the Chandalar River, but noted [Fort Yukon] is incorporated,
in an unorganized borough, with responsibilities [for water,
landfill, and solid waste]; and [Venetie and Beaver] are
unincorporated so don't have responsibilities, and are in
unorganized boroughs. Regarding the Yakutat Forelands, he said
the City and Borough of Yakutat has a full suite of
responsibilities [sewer, water, landfill, ports/harbors, roads],
and has an ordinance objecting to the nomination. Regarding the
Chilkat River, he stated that the Haines Borough is incorporated
[with responsibilities of sewer, piped water, ports/harbors,
roads] and that Klukwan is unincorporated in an unorganized
borough. Regarding the Koktuli River, he said the different
communities have different responsibilities [Newhalen and
Nondalton are each responsible for sewer, water, landfill,
roads, and Lake and Peninsula Borough ports/harbors; Iliamna is
unincorporated and in the Lake and Peninsula Borough]. He
opined that in the case of an unincorporated community in an
unorganized borough, the question of a Tier 3 designation is
placed on the legislature as that borough's assembly.
2:05:47 PM
MR. ANDREASSEN displayed slide 9 and related AML's justification
for legislative approval related to HB 138. He stated that for
AML it starts in the constitution, and the members he has talked
with have said they would prefer that power. As shown by his
review of communities related to the current nominations, making
it a local decision would be challenging, he continued. This
body, he said, gives those communities/stakeholders an
opportunity to air the challenges, concerns, and questions they
have in front of policymakers responsible for making those
decisions. He pointed out that the majority of APDES [Alaska
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System] permits are issued
within an organized borough, which has the capability and
capacity, along with DEC as a regulator, in a way that might not
be had in the unorganized borough. An unorganized borough
doesn't have an assembly other than the legislature, he
reiterated, which gives the legislature a different obligation
than in an organized borough. There is extensive impact to
local governments across the state, he continued, but not all of
these are regulated by DEC. The legislature, he added, is in a
strong position to work with DEC to fully vet with public input
any proposal designating a water of national significance. He
said the naming of water of national significance speaks to him
as going beyond an agency decision, and is similar to the role
of the U.S. Congress in naming national parks and other
conservation units. He maintained that while the decision can
be made with best science and public input, it is a political
decision that is appropriate to be made by the legislature.
CO-CHAIR TARR pointed out that APDES is the Alaska Pollution
Discharge Elimination System and that the State of Alaska has
primacy under the [federal] Clean Water Act for that
responsibility, which is a whole part of this conversation in
terms of delegation of authority and who gets to do that.
MR. ANDREASSEN turned to slide 10 and continued to discuss AML's
justification for legislative approval related to HB 138. He
stated the legislature has created and named conservation units
in Alaska, including the designation of 120 park units and 13
marine parks. Given this, he said, it shouldn't be different
when it comes to waters of national significance. He noted he
was pleased to provide invited testimony during the bill's first
hearing and that public testimony was also taken then. When it
moves beyond hypotheticals to a designation, he continued, AML
will be at the table to talk about what it would look like for
each community.
2:08:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether a future legislature could
reverse a previous legislature's designation of a Tier 3.
MR. CRAPPS replied that that is not detailed in the Clean Water
Act. He related that the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) opinion is that there is no precedent for that, so the
possibility for a Tier 3 designation to be undesignated is
available and would be on a case-by-case basis.
2:09:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN recounted that this issue has been around
for a while and the AML has taken a stance on whether impacted
communities should have a formal stop in the process. As the
bill is currently written, she noted, it would be up to the
legislature, 60 people exclusively, to make that decision. She
asked whether AML believes communities should have any say in
the process as a formal check-off, involvement, engagement,
consultation, or should just be engaged in the political process
so a community that has power might have a say, but a small
isolated community that is unincorporated would have no say.
She further asked whether the communities have weighed in on
this element.
MR. ANDREASSEN responded AML has not tackled this specifically
but would be happy to weigh in on that at the appropriate point
in further consideration of HB 138. He said the committee
structure of the legislature is relevant, meaningful, and
produces a lot of that stakeholder engagement that makes things
accessible and hopefully produces outcomes consistent with the
public interest.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN recalled Mr. Andreassen stating that the
community of Yakutat had issued a resolution in opposition to
Yakutat Forelands. She inquired whether any of the other
communities have offered input into any of those other
nominations. For example, she noted, Klukwan has weighed in
with its support of a designation.
MR. ANDREASSEN offered his belief that others have weighed in,
but without having that before the committee it is hard for him
to poll AML's members for that feedback as it would be on a
case-by-case basis. He added he would appreciate a weighted
consideration when it comes to municipal government as he thinks
that would be valuable.
2:11:20 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR recounted that when the legislature passed the
enabling statutes after the citizen initiative legalizing
marijuana, the legislature gave a local option component. She
asked whether this same kind of model would be something that
AML could support or whether AML has another suggestion for how
giving weighted support to communities could be accomplished.
MR. ANDREASSEN answered that AML would definitely consider an
elegant solution like that for working with the legislature to
ensure local control and voice in designating a water of
national significance.
CO-CHAIR TARR pointed out that in the case of a designation by
statute, any statute can be repealed and so there would be a
process for that. She requested clarification from Mr. Crapps
regarding his statement that there isn't any precedent for
"undesignation."
2:13:38 PM
MR. CRAPPS replied he was just speaking to the Clean Water Act
and it doesn't specify that, so whatever is the process that
states arrive on is what the Tier 3 process will be.
2:14:02 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN clarified that the designation of a Tier 3 is a
federal designation and the federal government has asked states
to come up with a nomination and designation process. So, he
explained, if the [Alaska State Legislature] were to ask for a
designation through statute and then the legislature rolled back
the statute, it would not automatically compel the federal
government to roll back the designation. There is nothing right
now in federal law that prevents that, he continued, but there
is also nothing that specifies a procedure or explicitly
authorizes [the federal government] to do that. He pointed out
that situations with any ambiguity and multiple positions on the
topic are going to end up in court. So, he said, at this point
it is a foregone conclusion that if the state were to have a
designated Tier 3 and then tried to roll it back, it would have
to go to court and get settled there.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN noted that each committee member appreciates
the importance of HB 138 and its topic and that there is no
intention to rush this process this session. He said more will
be learned during the interim and HB 138 will be addressed in a
responsible way during the next legislative session.
[HB 138 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB43 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/20/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| CSSB 43 (SFIN) - Sectional Summary.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43, Version A.PDF |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| CSSB 43, Version B.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Work Draft v. M - Explanation.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB43 Fiscal Note One - DCCED-CBPL 2.15.19.PDF |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB43 Fiscal Note Two - DCCED-CBPL 4.9.19.PDF |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Letters of Support.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Letters of Opposition.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 DCPL Letter .pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Bunch Testimony.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Additional Testimony Huttunen.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 BGCSB Letter of Support 4.03.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Big Game Commercial Services Board Sunset Review Audit.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB43 Supporting Document - RHAK Letter House Resources 4.25.19.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| HB138 Sponsor Statement version U 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 version A 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Fiscal Note 4.26.19.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 40 CFR Part 131 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 18 AAC 70.016 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Material DEC Tier 3 Water Designation FAQ 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Material DNR Fact Sheet Legislatively Designated Areas 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB138 Supporting Material DEC Tier 3 response 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Material Commissioner Hartig Letter to Senate 4.22.2019.PDF |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HR138 Supporting Document EPA Response to DEC 7.26.18.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HR 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - DEC P&P re Tier 3 Nomination 11.21.18.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - AML Presentation Tier 3 Designation Impact 05.03.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - DEC attachment sent to EPA 3.6.2018.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - Legal Opinion re HB 138 and Ballot Initiatives 5.1.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Supporting Documents - SEACC Letter and Reference Material 05.01.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Letters of Opposition 05.02.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Suppporting Document - Doyon Letter of Support 4.26.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB138 Coalition Letter of Support 4.28.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB138 Supporting Documents - Chilkat Indian Village 04.26.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB116 Sponsor Statement 4.15.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 ver U 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 DNR Fiscal Note 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 ver U Sectional Analysis 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 Explanation of Changes ver A to ver U 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 Aquatic Farm Application Review Flow Chart 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 - AFDF Letter of Support 2019-04-15.pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 ASGA Letter of Support 04.15.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 Supporting Document- Mariculture Plan.pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Letter of Opposition-Hillstrand.pdf |
HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - DEC State Tier 3 Review 5.3.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB138 Supporting Document - EPA to DEC Email 11.23.18.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - Legal Opinion re DEC Statutory Authority to Designate Tier 3 Waters 5.2.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Opposing Document - Letter in Opposition to House Resources Committee from SEACC - 5.1.19 (002).pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - Conitz Letter of Opposition 05.02.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |