Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
02/24/2020 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 | |
| HB138 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 138-NATIONAL RESOURCE WATER DESIGNATION
1:06:10 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced the only 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."
[Before the committee was the committee substitute for HB 138,
Version K, adopted as a working document during the bill hearing
on 2/10/20.]
1:07:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 31-
LS0811\K.5, Marx, 2/13/20, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 2, line 2:
Delete "seven"
Insert "nine"
Page 2, lines 10 -11:
Delete "or Native Corporation"
Page 2, following line 11:
Insert new subparagraphs to read:
"(B) one member who represents a Native
corporation in the state;
(C) one member who represents the general
public;"
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ explained Amendment 1 would expand the
membership of the [Alaska Outstanding Resource Water Advisory]
commission so that the one seat currently representing a tribal
entity, or a Native corporation, would represent a tribal
entity, one additional seat would represent a Native
corporation, and one additional seat would represent the general
public. The amendment sponsors sought to respond to public
testimony that Tier 3 water designation is important to tribal
communities that may have competing interests with Native
corporations, and to also expand membership of the commission to
include one member of the public.
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 138, agreed Amendment 1 provided balance to the commission by
creating separate seats for tribal entities, Native
corporations, and a member of the public.
1:10:24 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
1, which read:
On line 12, following "public," add:
with the qualifications of a four-year degree in
natural sciences, or five years relevant experience.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS objected for discussion purposes. He
agreed that the public member should have academic experience,
considering the importance of the bill to Alaska's ecosystems,
and urged that the public member hold an advanced degree.
1:11:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt [a conceptual amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 1], which read:
On line 12, following "(C)," add:
one member who holds a PhD in natural sciences or has
five years relevant experience working for an
environmental research entity.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:13:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt [second conceptual
amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1], which read:
On line 12, following "(C)," add:
one member who represents the general public, with the
qualifications of holding a PhD in natural sciences or
five years relevant experience working for an
environmental research entity.
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN expressed her concern that requiring a PhD
restricts the number of qualified members who are available to
serve on the commission and suggested holding an advanced degree
in natural resources would suffice.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ agreed with [the second conceptual
amendment]; she said Alaska has three universities, staffed by
academics with doctorates in natural sciences, available to
serve on the commission. In addition, a highly-qualified public
member would assure communities that the commission process is
science-based.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN agreed with Representative Hannan that
a person with a four-year degree could be well-qualified in
their field.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO agreed with Representative Hannan that
the seat may be difficult to fill and keep filled.
1:17:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed support for Conceptual Amendment 1
as originally offered. He said requiring a PhD in a subject
matter directly dealing with water would limit the number of
those willing to serve on the commission to "a handful of people
in Alaska." In addition, five years relevant experience working
in an environmental research firm may not necessarily be
meaningful experience.
1:19:33 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:20:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS withdrew second conceptual amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 1 and moved to adopt third conceptual
amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1 which read:
On line 12, following "(C)," add:
one member who represents the general public, with the
qualifications of an advanced degree in natural
sciences or five years of relevant experience working
for an environmental research organization.
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS explained the purpose of the conceptual
amendment is to ensure the public member of the commission holds
a four-year degree and also has specific qualifications, a
research background and interest in natural sciences, and work
experience relevant to the issue. In response to Representative
Spohnholz, he clarified the public member would have an advanced
degree or five years of work experience.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked for a legal definition of
relevant experience.
1:22:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN noted the commission would include
members from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC),
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) - all of which are science-
based departments - and thus would provide sufficient scientific
background to the commission.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said his intent is that relevant work
experience would include research into water and Alaska's
environment and ecosystem. He stressed the public member would
provide a scientific opinion and vote to the nine-member
commission.
CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN objected.
1:25:17 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tuck, Hannan,
Hopkins, Spohnholz, and Tarr voted in favor of the [third
conceptual amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1].
Representatives Rasmussen, Rauscher, Talerico, and Lincoln voted
against it. Therefore, the conceptual amendment was adopted by
a vote of 5-4.
1:27:10 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:27 p.m. to 1:35 p.m.
1:35:41 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to rescind the committee's action in
adopting [the conceptual amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1].
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
1:35:49 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1.
1:35:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt [Conceptual Amendment 2]
which read:
On line 12, [following (C)]:
one member who represents the general public and has
an advanced degree in a natural science.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN objected for discussion purposes. She
expressed her belief one who has "experience in the field"
should be considered as a candidate for a member of the
commission; [Conceptual Amendment 2] eliminates options for
great candidates who would participate in the important process
of determining Tier 3 waters. She pointed out the message to
youth would be that a college degree supersedes any relevant
work or technical experience.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated his agreement with Representative
Rasmussen.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN spoke in favor of [Conceptual Amendment
2]. She said [HB 138] creates a commission with an authority
that not been exercised by the state; of the proposed nine-
member commission only the general public seat is required to
have a science background. She acknowledged commissioners, and
other members, may have a science background, but it is not
required, and some members may be appointed due to their life
experience.
1:39:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO agreed relevant experience may qualify
members; for example, many Alaskans have work experience in
matters of water control, and nonpoint source and point source
discharges, and thereby understand the hydrology of water
control.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP urged the committee to accommodate all
concerns by extending the language of the conceptual amendment
to include "or five years relevant work experience in a natural
science profession."
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN maintained her objection.
1:42:09 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Hannan, Hopkins,
Spohnholz, Tuck, Lincoln, and Tarr voted in favor of [Conceptual
Amendment 2]. Representatives Rasmussen, Rauscher, and Talerico
voted against it. Therefore, [Conceptual Amendment 2] was
adopted by a vote of 6-3.
1:43:26 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:43 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.
1:45:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to adopt [Conceptual Amendment 3]
which read:
On line 12, following "science," add:
or five years of relevant work experience.
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked for the meaning of relevant work
experience.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER explained relevant work experience is on
the job experience in an identified field.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ suggested the work experience should
specify in a field of natural sciences.
1:46:55 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:46 p.m. to 1:52 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER restated [Conceptual Amendment 3] which
read:
On line 12, following "science," add:
or five years of relevant work experience in the field
of natural sciences.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked whether there was objection to [Conceptual
Amendment 3 to Amendment 1]. There being no objection,
[Conceptual Amendment 3] was adopted.
CO-CHAIR TARR returned attention to Amendment 1, as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS questioned whether a definition of
relevant work experience can be found, or is utilized, in
statute.
1:54:50 PM
MARIE MARX, attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, informed the
committee she had not found a definition of relevant experience
in statute; in absence of a definition, the Alaska Supreme Court
has advised that when common terms are used in statute, words
are given their common meaning, as can be found in a dictionary.
However, to provide clarity, the committee could add a
definition.
CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection to Amendment 1, as amended.
There being no further objection, Amendment 1, as amended, was
adopted.
1:56:08 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 31-
LS0811\K.10, Marx, 2/20/20, which read:
Page 2, line, following "water.":
Insert "The department shall provide
administrative support to the commission and, at the
request of the commission, provide the scientific
analysis necessary for the commission to make a
decision under this section."
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR TARR explained Amendment 2 clarifies that, if
requested, the department will provide commission members
assistance in their review of a nomination, and that the
department will provide administrative support to the
commission.
1:57:18 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
2, which read:
On line 3:
delete "provide" and insert "assist with"
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR TARR clarified the amendment to line 3.
1:59:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK removed his objection and there being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 was
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed his support for Amendment 2, as
amended, and pointed out the assistance from the department
would come at the consensus of the commission and in a role not
too prescriptive. Further, the commission will need
administrative support from department staff.
2:00:42 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN removed his objection to Amendment 2, as
amended.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS questioned whether a consensus was
required to request scientific analysis from the department; he
expressed his belief an individual commission member should have
access to department staff.
CO-CHAIR TARR explained her intent was to ensure access to the
department could be requested by the commission when necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP agreed.
2:02:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS removed his objection and there being no
further objection, Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted.
2:03:22 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN moved to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 31-
LS0811\K.11, Marx, 2/20/20, which read:
Page 4, line 23:
Delete "."
Insert ";"
Page 4, following line 23:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(3) "resident of the state" includes
(A) an individual who establishes residency
under AS 01.10.055;
(B) a corporation, company, partnership,
firm, association, organization, business, trust, or
society organized, incorporated, or headquartered in
the state;
(C) a federally recognized tribe or tribal
entity in the state."
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN explained Amendment 3 clarifies who can bring a
nomination forward by describing, in addition to an individual,
a resident of the state includes a variety of organizations,
corporations, federally recognized tribes, and tribal entities
in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked how organizations prove they are
headquartered in Alaska.
MS. MARX advised an entity could provide documentation regarding
its address, records, and tax forms, and the commission would
determine whether the requirement is met.
2:05:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN inquired as to whether the commission
would require an entity to be present in Alaska for at least one
year.
MS. MARX said the amendment does not include the requirement of
a set duration but only that the organization is organized,
incorporated, or headquartered in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN surmised an entity could qualify and
bring forward a nomination one day after it opened its door.
MS. MARX said correct.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN directed attention to the statutory definition
for residency, AS 01.10.055, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
(a) A person establishes residency in the state by
being physically present in the state with the intent
to remain in the state indefinitely and to make a home
in the state.
(b) A person demonstrates the intent required under
(a) of this section
(1) by maintaining a principal place of abode in the
state for at least 30 days or for a longer period if a
longer period is required by law or regulation; and
(2) by providing other proof of intent as may be
required by law or regulation, which may include proof
that the person is not claiming residency outside the
state or obtaining benefits under a claim of residency
outside the state.
(c) A person who establishes residency in the state
remains a resident during an absence from the state
unless during the absence the person establishes or
claims residency in another state, territory, or
country, or performs other acts or is absent under
circumstances that are inconsistent with the intent
required under (a) of this section to remain a
resident of this state.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN said the residency requirement for an
individual is at least 30 days.
MS. MARX noted in the amendment, as drafted, AS 01.10.055
applies only to an individual; subparagraphs (B) and (C) do not
have durational requirements.
2:08:47 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:08 p.m. to 2:10 p.m.
CO-CHAIR TARR suggested the committee consider language to
include durational requirements for subparagraphs (B) and (C).
MS. MARX said if the intent of the legislature is to include
certain durational requirements of an entity, durational
requirements can be incorporated by Legislative Legal Services
if granted technical and conforming authority.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked whether constitutional issues
regarding residency requirements may arise; she provided
examples of one-year residency requirements, such as for certain
licenses issued by ADFG and the permanent fund dividend.
MS. MARX offered to review possible constitutional issues.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK observed the commission would have
responsibilities regarding the allocation of land, water, and
other resources; he cautioned against nominations made by
outsiders unfamiliar with Alaska and said he supported [the
inclusion of durational requirements].
2:15:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS agreed; however, he posited a group of
individual Alaskans who organize may have to wait one year to
forward a nomination for a Tier 3 waterway. He urged the
committee to garner advice from Ms. Marx before proceeding in
this regard.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked Ms. Marx whether a resident of the state
would quality to forward a nomination under subparagraph (A),
(B), or (C).
MS. MARX explained paragraph (3), subparagraph (A) incorporates
the residency requirement referenced in AS 01.10.055, which is
by maintaining a principal residence in the state for 30 days.
A residency requirement would have to be added to subparagraphs
(B) and (C).
CO-CHAIR TARR surmised in Representative Hopkins' example,
individuals who form a group would still qualify under
subparagraph (A).
MS. MARX agreed a nomination submitted in an individual's name,
who is a resident of the state, would qualify under subparagraph
(A) and individuals would have to decide in which category to
submit a nomination.
[There followed examples and a short discussion in this regard.]
2:19:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK directed attention to Version K on page 2,
line 26, which read:
(1) establish a process for a resident of the
state to nominate water for designation as outstanding
national resource water; the process must at a minimum
require that the nomination be submitted to the
commission in writing and include
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK directed attention to Version K on page 2,
line 26, and pointed out a requirement of at least one-year
residency could be included in [proposed new section 46.03.087
(e)(1), Version K].
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether subparagraphs (A), (B), or
(C) include municipalities or political subdivisions of the
state.
MS. MARX said, as drafted, Amendment 3 does not prohibit other
entities who fit in similar categories as those identified;
however, to ensure municipalities are included, she recommended
they be added to the definition.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 3 which read:
On line 12, following "state," add:
or municipality or political subdivision of the state;
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN objected for discussion purposes. She
asked for the definition of a political subdivision.
MS. MARX offered to provide a definition of a political
subdivision.
CO-CHAIR TARR questioned whether the addition of political
subdivision could be included by the conforming authority
granted to Legislative Legal Services.
MS. MARX advised that would be a substantive change that would
exceed technical and conforming authority without an amendment
request.
The committee took a brief at ease.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS restated Conceptual Amendment 1 to read:
On line 12 following "state," add:
(D) a political subdivision of the state or
municipality.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 3 was
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked whether subparagraph (A), which
referenced AS 01.10.0055 30-day residency, would be in conflict
with the addition of a one-year residency to proposed new
section 46.03.087 (e)(1), Version K, that was suggested by
Representative Tuck.
MS. MARX recommended the committee add the definition in
Amendment 3, if adopted.
2:29:50 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN returned attention to AS 01.10.055 [text
previously provided]. He noted the statute directs "maintaining
a principal place of abode in the state for at least 30 days ...
or for a longer period if a longer period is required by law or
regulation."
MS. MARX stated to avoid confusion about the committee's intent,
she recommended the committee add its definition to "resident of
the state" in paragraph (3) of Amendment 3. She acknowledged AS
01.10.055 allows a longer period of time if stated in the law.
2:31:22 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:31 p.m. to 2:33 p.m.
2:33:45 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR said Amendment 3, as amended, was set aside for
further drafting.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS suggested on Amendment 3, line 7, a
change from "includes" to "means."
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:35:24 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN withdrew Amendment 3.
2:35:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 31-
LS0811\K.12, Marx, 2/20/20, which read:
Page 2, line 9:
Delete "governor"
Insert "governor and confirmed by a majority of
the members of the legislature in joint session:"
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN explained Amendment 4 would require that
the members of the Alaska Outstanding Resource Water Advisory
Commission would be subject to confirmation by the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN expressed her support for Amendment 4,
which would balance the influence of the governor.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ surmised only the non-commissioner
appointees would be affected.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said yes.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN observed Version K specifies each appointee
from DEC, DNR, and ADFG would be the commissioner or the
commissioner's designee.
CO-CHAIR TARR cautioned the amendment may mean that appointees
have to tolerate high levels of scrutiny, as do other appointees
to state boards and commissions, who are confirmed by the
legislature. She said the [nomination advisory commission] is
more technical, and less political, in nature.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK directed attention to Version K, page 2,
line 9, and clarified Amendment 4 does not affect commissioners
[of departments or their] designees but relates to the other
members of the advisory commission.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS pointed out the commission would not be a
judicial or quasi-judicial board that makes decisions but would
make recommendations to the legislature for review and final
action. He asked to hear the bill sponsor's opinion on the
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN agreed the confirmation process can be
chaotic for the governor and the legislature; however, the
review of appointees through the committee hearing confirmation
process would ensure the best appointees are seated on the
commission.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO agreed with Representative Hopkins that
most members of commissions [confirmed by the legislature] are
not in an advisory capacity but serve in a decision-making
process, and individuals who serve in a traditional advisory
capacity are usually not subject to confirmation.
2:42:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN referred to a legal memo advising that
appointees to commissions and boards that have adjudicatory or
allocative authority, such as the Board of Game and the Board of
Fisheries, must be confirmed, as do licensing boards, which have
adjudicatory authority [document not provided]. She said the
[Alaska Outstanding Resource Water Advisory Commission] is in-
between: it does not have direct authority but is part of a
Tier 3 designation process that is allocative of a natural
resource. In addition, the legislative confirmation of
appointees would add legitimacy to the designation process.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER recalled previous testimony that the
legislature does not have to follow the [Tier 3 water
designation process].
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said [after passage of HB 137] the
legislature would not designate outstanding natural resource
water.
CO-CHAIR TARR disagreed, noting constituents would still be able
to bring a bill directly to their legislator for introduction.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ opined the commission is neither
adjudicative nor allocative; in fact, the legislature could
ignore its recommendations. The purpose of the commission is to
provide another method to vet and process nominations; those who
oppose creating the commission state the commission is
unnecessary, unlike the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, for
example.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP directed attention to [the Alaska State
Constitution, article 3, section 26] which read:
When a board or commission is at the head of a
principal department or a regulatory or quasi-judicial
agency, its members shall be appointed by the
governor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the
members of the legislature in joint session, and may
be removed as provided by law. They shall be citizens
of the United States. The board or commission may
appoint a principal executive officer when authorized
by law, but the appointment shall be subject to the
approval of the governor.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said the constitution makes clear when
appointees to boards and commissions are subject to
confirmation. He observed Alaska has 136 boards and
commissions, most of which are not subject to legislative
confirmation; of 136, 28 are of an advisory nature and all but
the Alaska Commercial Fishermen's Fund Advisory and Appeals
Council and the Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory
Board, both of which have duties beyond those of an advisory
body, are not subject to legislative confirmation. He agreed
boards with licensing or adjudicatory authority are subject to
confirmation; however, the Alaska Outstanding Resource Water
Advisory Commission created by HB 137 would be fundamentally
advisory in nature, and he cautioned there is legal precedent
that Amendment 4 may be unconstitutional. Representative Kopp
stressed the legislature retains final authority above the
commission and expressed his opposition to the amendment.
2:50:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN withdrew Amendment 4.
[There followed discussion related to the committee's action on
amendments and on forthcoming amendments.]
2:54:29 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN moved to adopt [Amendment 5, identified on the
audio recording as Amendment 11], labeled 31-LS0811\K.20, Marx,
2/21/20, which read:
Page 3, line 5:
Delete "nonpoint source"
Page 4, lines 18 - 23:
Delete all material and insert:
"(j) In this section, "commission" means the
Alaska Outstanding Resource Water Advisory
Commission."
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
2:54:46 PM
TREVER FULTON, staff, on behalf of Representative Kopp, sponsor
of HB 138, explained [Amendment 5, K.20] addresses a drafting
oversight. The sponsor of the bill did not intend to exclude
point source activities from what is considered in the
"nomination package"; in fact, point sources would be an factor
reviewed by DEC in a Tier 3 waterbody designation, and removing
nonpoint source activity from the criteria section of the bill
would thereby include point source and nonpoint source
activities. In addition, the amendment removes the definition
of nonpoint source activities.
CO-CHAIR TARR surmised the amendment would broaden the
definition of activities.
MR. FULTON said correct.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for clarification.
MR. FULTON directed attention to Version K, on page 3, line 5,
which read:
(E) a discussion of any nonpoint source activity to be
conducted in the foreseeable future that may affect
water quality;
MR. FULTON further explained the removal of [subparagraph (E)]
would open the discussion to include both point and nonpoint
source activities; nonpoint source is also referred to in the
bill in the definition section on page 4, which would also be
removed.
2:57:03 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection and there being no further
objection, [Amendment 5, K.20] was adopted.
[HB 138 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 138 Testimony - As of 2.21.20.pdf |
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 HRES Amendment One - Spohnholz 2.13.20.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Two - Tarr 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Three - Lincoln 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Four - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Five - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Six - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
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 HRES Amendment Seven - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Eight - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
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 HRES Amendment Nine - Tuck 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Ten - Spohnholz and Lincoln 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Eleven - Lincoln 2.21.20.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Testimony - 2.21.20-2.22.20.pdf |
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 Sponsor Statement 2.4.2020.pdf |
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 HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Draft CS v. K.pdf |
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 HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Sectional Analysis v. K 2.4.2020.pdf |
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 HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Fiscal Note CS(RES)-DFG-CO-2-14-20.pdf |
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 HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Fiscal Note CSHB138-DNR-MLW-2-17-20.pdf |
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 HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Fiscal Note HB138CS(RES)-DEC-WIF-02-16-20.pdf |
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 HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Testimony - As of 2.13.20.pdf |
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 Testimony - As of 2.17.20.pdf |
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 Answers from DEC to Questions on 2.10.20.pdf |
HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Supporting Document - Legal Opinion re Person and Resident definitions 2.13.20.pdf |
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 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 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 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - DNR Fact Sheet Legislatively Designated Areas 4.22.2019.pdf |
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 |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - DEC Summary of Tier 3 Designations 3.2019.pdf |
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 Document - DEC Letter re Review of Tier 3 in Other States 5.3.19.pdf |
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 Document - Tier 3 Nominations.pdf |
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 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 Material DEC Final Tier 3 Guidance 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 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 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 |
| 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 |
| HB 138 Fiscal Note CS v. K DEC-WIF 2.21.20.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |