Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
03/11/2020 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 | |
| SB123 | |
| HB138 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | SB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 138-NATIONAL RESOURCE WATER DESIGNATION
1:17:32 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced the final 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.]
CO-CHAIR TARR reviewed amendments adopted at the bill hearing on
3/9/20, and forthcoming amendments.
1:20:57 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt [Amendment 8, K.24, labeled 31-
LS0811\K.24, Marx, 3/5/20, identified on the audio recording as
Amendment 14], which read:
Page 2, line 31, through page 3, line 6:
Delete all material and insert:
"(C) a general description of
(i) what makes the
water an outstanding national resource
water, including a general description
of the recreational or ecological value
that makes the water exceptional;
(ii) the existing
water quality and any technical data on
which the description is based;
(iii) any nonpoint
source activity to be conducted in the
foreseeable future that may affect
water quality;"
Reletter the following subparagraphs accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR TARR directed attention to Version K, on page 2,
beginning on line 26. She pointed out the items necessary for
nomination include subparagraph (C) an explanation; subparagraph
(D) a description; subparagraph (E) a discussion; subparagraph
(F) an analysis. For clarity, the amendment instead provides
for a general description of the same items listed in
subparagraphs (C), (D), (E), and (F).
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER recalled he raised a question at the
bill hearing on 3/9/20 related to [Amendment 8, K.24,
subparagraph (C), sub-subparagraphs (i) and (ii)], that remains
unanswered. He restated his question as follows:
If during the designation of a Tier 3 waterbody, you
have a baseline number, let's say its 3, and an added
resource extraction or whatever ... company comes in
and it takes water out of that source, that body
source, and by the time it replaces the water that
it's used is it actually cleaner. So, has the
baseline changed to the cleaner water that is now
added to the water source or is the original baseline,
which would be a lower mark, the mark we adhere to for
going forward from then on ...?
1:25:38 PM
EMMA POKON, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), was unsure.
Federal law says the water quality shall be maintained and
protected, so it is unclear whether water quality that has been
improved could be degraded from that point. In further response
to Representative Rauscher, she said she was inclined to say
that once the water has become cleaner, any activity that would
degrade the water from the cleaner level would be disallowed.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked Representative Tarr how Ms.
Pokon's response relates to the amendment.
CO-CHAIR TARR said the language in the amendment is included in
the bill to describe the items that are required to complete a
nomination. Her intent for the amendment is to use "a general
description" because Version K uses explanation, description,
discussion, and analysis, which is confusing for citizen
nominators. She asked Representative Kopp to further discuss
sub-subparagraphs (i) and (ii).
1:28:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
the sponsor of HB 138, confirmed (i) and (ii) would be in the
bill regardless, because (i) and (ii) describe what would be
required in the nomination packet; he said he had no objection
to [Amendment 8, K.24].
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ pointed out the amendment refers to
nonpoint source activity, which would be inconsistent with a
previously adopted amendment.
1:32:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1
to [Amendment 8, K.24] to remove "nonpoint source" from line 9.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR TARR reminded the committee "nonpoint source" was
removed from Version K by a previous amendment, so the bill
would [address source and nonpoint source activities].
[There followed discussion to clarify the conceptual amendment.]
1:35:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK removed his objection.
[Although not stated on the record, the committee treated
Conceptual Amendment 1 to [Amendment 8, K.24], as adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS stated small scale mining permits may
require mining operations to discharge water that is cleaner
after mining operations. Under the aforementioned
circumstances, he questioned whether the [improved] water
quality downstream from the mine would become the new standard,
and whether the improved water quality would be considered a
change to a Tier 3 waterway.
MS. POKON said if an entity is operating with water designated
Tier 3, their activity would not be prohibited by the
designation; if the entity is improving water quality, DEC would
not force them to continue operations if the cessation of
operations would result in lower water quality; however, the
cleaner water does not create space for another entity to begin
or increase discharge.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether a mine operation - that
seeks to begin operations on a Tier 3 waterbody, and is granted
a permit that requires cleaner water to be discharged - would be
allowed.
MS. POKON said DEC's evaluation on a Tier 3 water is whether the
activity would degrade the water quality, if not, the activity
would not be prohibited.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS surmised "degrading," not "changing" the
water quality is the operative term.
MS. POKON said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for clarification of this issue "at
the federal level."
MS. POKON was unsure whether the aforementioned terms are
specific or clear in EPA regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said some of the terms used are clouded
by one's perception.
1:40:15 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR asked for clarification on two questions: an
activity can be permitted upriver of a Tier 3 waterbody as long
as the activity does not degrade water quality in the Tier 3
designated area; within a Tier 3 water, if there were a
permitted activity that ceased operations, DEC would not permit
a new activity to take the place of the previous activity.
MS. POKON advised an upstream activity that does not affect the
water quality in the Tier 3 waters, if that can be shown to be
the case .... If there were a potential to lower water quality,
proper permitting of the upstream activity would be questioned
by DEC. Also, DEC regulation 18 ACC 70.016(d) is the provision
for lower water quality if temporary and limited.
CO-CHAIR TARR restated the second question.
MS. POKON pointed out states have interpreted federal Tier 3
provisions differently; some states have designated Tier 3
waterbodies for their recreational or ecological qualities,
notwithstanding that water quality standards were not met. She
advised a "tradeoff" of one source of discharge for another
would not be allowed under the strict interpretation of
regulations, and a new activity likely would not be allowed. In
further response to Representative Rauscher, she said allowable
activities for the same operator would depend on the provisions
of its permit; if there is a change in operations that would
result in a negative impact on water quality, DEC would review
the permit authorization.
1:48:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK urged for a written response to his previous
question as to whether the "baseline" is an exact number or a
description of the water quality at a certain point, or whether
the baseline can change under some conditions. For example, if
the water quality improves, whether DEC would return to the
baseline. He inquired as to whether DEC standards relate to
degrading water quality or changing the character of the water
quality.
1:49:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP pointed out the determination of what
constitutes a Tier 3 waterbody is not a provision of HB 138; he
acknowledged the value of the questions, but noted the bill
would only establish the process of a Tier 3 nomination.
MS. POKON offered to provide written responses in addition to
stating that when DEC reviews permitting from a water quality
perspective, DEC looks at whether a quality standard is met and
if there is capacity for a waterbody to accept additional
discharges without violating water quality standards. Tier 3
differs in that there cannot be any degradation to the water
quality, which is not set to a water quality standard or a
numeric value; DEC issues permits depending upon the
circumstances, such as degradation due to nonpoint source
activity, and a baseline is not necessarily applicable.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked for a clarification of degrading water
quality as compared to changing the character of water.
MS. POKON advised DEC establishes water quality standards to
protect water quality for a variety of uses, including
recreational use, or for fish; an acceptable level of pollutant
load may depend upon the use of the water. Changing the
character of the water may also depend on use and would have to
be evaluated carefully if DEC were asked to authorize an
activity.
1:55:28 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR surmised when DEC is evaluating a nomination it
would review water quality, water character, and the degradation
of water quality.
MS. POKON said the Clean Water Act directs DEC to maintain and
protect water quality, thus an activity that would degrade water
quality, except in a temporary or limited term, would be a
challenge for DEC to authorize. In further response to Co-Chair
Tarr, she said DEC regulations specify "the lowering of water
quality."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK recalled previous testimony from [Randy
Bates, director, Division of Water, DEC], who stated there could
not be any additional improvements to Tier 3 water quality, and
asked for a written response to this and other questions about
EPA regulations.
MS. POKON said DEC would provide responses in writing and
directed the committee's attention to regulation 18 ACC
70.016(d).
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether DEC is currently using the
regulation titled 18 AAC 70.017 Tier 3 Outstanding Resource
Water [document not provided]. She read from the document and
said the described Tier 3 Outstanding Resource Water designation
process has not been completed, followed, or exercised. She
asked whether this regulation is being applied, when it was
promulgated and adopted, and if said waters have been treated as
Tier 3 waters. Further, to the sponsor of HB 138, she
questioned why this regulation was excluded from the bill.
2:00:28 PM
MS. POKON said 18 ACC 70.017 was proposed in 2014 but was not
included in the final regulations that were adopted; DEC
currently has adopted regulations on rules for how to manage a
Tier 3 water after designation, and because the current
designation process directs a nomination through the legislative
process, no Tier 3 waters have been designated in Alaska, thus
DEC has not had an occasion to implement the regulations. In
response to Co-Chair Tarr, she said the regulations on how to
manage Tier 3 water are within 18 ACC 70.016.
2:02:50 PM
TREVER FULTON, staff, Representative Chuck Kopp, on behalf of
Representative Kopp, sponsor of HB 138, confirmed the regulation
referenced by Representative Hannan was never adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for confirmation that there are
Tier 3 waterbodies in the Lower 48 that don't meet "the
standards."
MS. POKON said in the Lower 48, states have designated Tier 3
waterbodies that don't meet the state's water quality standards,
but have exceptional ecological or recreational significance.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested cleaning up legacy wells may
affect their possible recreational significance as a tar pit.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER removed his objection and there being no
further objection [Amendment 8, K.24], as amended, was adopted.
2:08:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN moved to adopt [Amendment 9, K.14, labeled
31-LS0811\K.14, Marx, 2/21/20, identified on the audio recording
as Amendment 6], which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, lines 11 - 17:
Delete all material and insert:
"(2) by an affirmative vote of a majority
of the members of the commission,
(A) make a finding, within 60 days after
receipt of a nomination, of whether the nomination
complies with the requirements under (1) of this
subsection;
(B) decide, within one year after finding a
nomination is in compliance, whether to recommend the
designation of the nominated water as outstanding
national resource water;"
Page 3, lines 22 - 23:
Delete "the commission has determined meets"
Insert "found by the commission to meet"
Page 4, lines 3 - 7:
Delete all material and insert:
"(f) If the commission finds under (e)(2)(A) of
this section that a nomination is not compliant, the
commission shall provide written notice of the finding
to the resident who submitted the nomination. The
notice must specify the reason for the finding and
describe how the resident may correct the nomination
to comply with the requirements under (e)(1) of this
section. The resident may correct and resubmit the
nomination to the commission.
(g) Before deciding whether to recommend a
designation of a nominated water as outstanding
national resource water, the commission shall provide
an opportunity for public notice and comment on the
nomination. A member who votes against a
recommendation approved by the commission may provide
a written summary of the member's dissenting opinion."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 4, line 8:
Delete "(e) or (f)"
Insert "(e)"
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN explained the amendment would set a 60-day
time limit for the commission to make a finding as to whether a
Tier 3 water nomination complies with nomination requirements
and, if a nomination is found not compliant, the commission
would be required to provide the nominator written notice of the
finding, describe the reason for the finding, and specify how
the nomination could be made compliant. The nominator can
correct and resubmit the nomination to the commission.
2:09:43 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:09 p.m. to 2:12 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN directed attention to [Amendment 9, K.14]
and said subparagraph (B), found on [page 1, lines 8-10], and
subsection (g), found on [page 2, lines 1-5], have been achieved
by a previously adopted amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said redundancy between the previously
adopted amendment and [Amendment 9, K.14] is not a problem and
supported the element in the amendment that requires the
commission to make a finding and respond to the nominator.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER directed attention to line 21 and
questioned why the commission would have to describe how to
correct the nomination.
2:15:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN suggested the commission would request
additional descriptions of the items it needs to make its
determination, and gave an example.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER proposed adding the words "if possible"
preceding "describe."
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN pointed out "may," on line 21, releases
the commission from responsibility to provide the correction,
and [sub-subparagraph (f)] requires only that the commission
inform the nominator of why the nomination does not comply.
[There followed a short discussion of a possible conceptual
amendment.]
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
[Amendment 9, K.14] on line 21, to insert "if possible" before
the word "describe".
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN objected.
2:20:23 PM
MARIE MARX, attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, explained the
amendment provides that if the commission finds a nomination not
compliant it must report what is missing from the nomination and
how the nomination can be fixed; the language, "the notice must
specify the reason for the finding," is meant to provide the
nominator an idea of what can be done. The language, "describe
how the resident may correct ..." is related to the finding.
For example, if a nominator is missing a specific description,
the notice would specify the description needed. She said "if
possible" is not language typically seen in statute and opined
the notice does not need to be a detailed description of what is
missing.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN, on the advice of Legislative Legal
Services, maintained her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he would not support the conceptual
amendment.
CO-CHAIR TARR interpreted Representative Rauscher's concern to
be that a correction of the nomination application could lead to
a successful Tier 3 water determination and surmised that is not
the intent of the amendment.
MS. MARX pointed out the difference between a recommendation and
a nomination: a recommendation is the final decision by the
commission on whether to forward a nomination of a waterbody to
the governor and the legislature; the amendment addresses
whether a nomination is complete so it may be evaluated by the
commission. If a nomination is missing information, the
commission must inform the nominator, but the notice does not
constitute a recommendation.
2:26:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO observed any finding by the commission
would reveal compliance or not compliant with the requirements
of a nomination.
MS. MARX, in response to Co-Chair Tarr, acknowledged the
amendment adds additional requirements as to what the commission
must do in response to a nomination.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP agreed with Representative Tuck that the
requirements for a nomination are general; in regard to [the
amendment on page 1, lines 5-7], he opined a 60-day limit is
insufficient for the committee to make a finding, and urged the
committee to consider a 90- to 120-day limit.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked Ms. Pokon to advise on the department's
capacity to respond to requests from the commission for data and
other information within a 60-day window.
MS. POKON was unsure of the volume or accessibility of data that
may be requested and said 60 days seems reasonable.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1 to
[Amendment 9, K.14].
2:32:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2,
which read:
Page 1, beginning at line 20 [in part]:
The notice must specify the reason for the finding and
allow the nominator to resubmit the nomination to the
commission.
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO explained subparagraph (f) fully
describes: nomination, not compliant, the finding, and
providing notification of not compliant. Therefore, Conceptual
Amendment 2 more simply accomplishes the intent of [lines 21-23,
in part].
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK objected. He concluded the conceptual
amendment shortens the language of the amendment.
CO-CHAIR TARR noted, for consistency in the language of the
bill, the use of resident instead of nominator.
2:37:52 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
CO-CHAIR TARR said in the final version of the bill resident
would be replaced with qualified nominator, so Legislative Legal
Services will be asked to make conforming changes where
necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether Conceptual Amendment 2 removes
that the commission would describe how the resident may correct
the nomination.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO pointed out [on page 1, beginning on
line 18] the amendment reads, "if the commission finds under
(e)(2)(A) of this section, that a nomination is not compliant,
the commission shall provide written notice of the finding to
the resident who submitted the nomination." He opined the
written notice of the finding would address the notice of not
compliant.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK agreed the finding would include a
description of not compliant with the minimum requirements;
however, he asked if the conceptual amendment removes how the
resident may correct the nomination.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said no. The intent is to allow the
nominator to resubmit the nomination.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained how the conceptual amendment would
eliminate - by intent or by accident - that the commission
describe how the resident may correct the nomination.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said the finding of not compliant would
provide the direction needed to correct the nomination.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK maintained his objection.
2:42:16 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR said one may be satisfied that the written notice
of the finding would provide why the nomination is incomplete
and thereby would suffice for how the resident may correct the
nomination.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, following the aforementioned reasoning,
suggested there is no need for the part of the sentence, "the
notice must specify the reason ..."
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said "The notice must specify the
reason" is key to the descriptive nature of what is, or is not,
compliant.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK removed his objection.
MS. MARX, in response to Representative Hannan and Co-Chair
Tarr, opined the conceptual amendment would change the
requirements in the amendment; subparagraph (f) requires that
the commission provide written notice of its finding, but does
not specify that the reason for the finding would be included.
The second sentence provides that the reason is specified and
how the nomination may be corrected and resubmitted. The policy
choices are: provide the resident notice of the finding that
the nomination is not complete; provide notice and reasons for
the finding; provide a notice, describe the reasons for the
finding, and how to complete the nomination; whether the
resident can correct the nomination and resubmit; whether the
resident submits a new nomination.
2:46:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN objected to the conceptual amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO cautioned against the possibility that
the commission would be required to actually craft the
nomination instead of only explaining the reasons for its
finding; he expressed confidence nominators would easily respond
to the finding of not compliant and correct the nomination. He
said he would accept the addition of "correct and" resubmit.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER expressed opposition to a situation in
which the commission would be doing the work for the nominator.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed his opposition to the conceptual
amendment because it would change the intent of [Amendment 9,
K.14].
CO-CHAIR TARR expressed her opposition to the conceptual
amendment because the use of "may" addresses circumstances in
which the commission would "handhold" the nominator.
2:52:05 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Rauscher and
Talerico voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 2 to [Amendment
9, K.14]. Representatives Tuck, Hannan, Hopkins, Spohnholz,
Lincoln, and Tarr voted against it. Therefore, [Conceptual
Amendment 2] failed by a vote of 2-6.
2:52:58 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN observed the commission would be reviewing
nominations, some of which may be incomplete, and gave an
example of how the commission's difficult and important work may
suffer from possible delays. He moved to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 3, which read:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete 60 and replace with 120
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK urged the committee to compare the
commission's workload and timeline to other commissions, such as
the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), and to seek a balance
between the commission's workload and timeline.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP advised RCA is a fulltime commission that
works year-around with a fulltime staff and cannot be compared
to a volunteer advisory commission.
2:56:15 PM
MS. MARX was unsure of the timelines that are directed for other
commissions; furthermore, the advisory commission is unique in
its nomination and recommendation process.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER recalled there are five nominations
awaiting vetting by the commission and expressed his support for
Conceptual Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ questioned the extent of the
commission's staff support.
2:58:38 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN stated the bill currently requires the
commission to meet and vote on whether a nomination is compliant
and, within one year, decide whether to make a recommendation.
He pointed out the timeline that is set would determine how
frequently the commission meets.
CO-CHAIR TARR, speaking from her personal experience, said
boards and commissions have practical logistics issues.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN, speaking as sponsor of the amendment,
said the advisory commission may not have adequate staffing for
quarterly meetings and agreed to the change to 120 days made by
Conceptual Amendment 3.
3:01:02 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection and there being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4, which
read:
Page 1, line 6:
following "nomination," add:
and 90 days for any corrected nomination that has been
resubmitted,
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said the intent of the conceptual amendment
is that a corrected nomination that has been resubmitted would
not have to be subject to a 120-day process.
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
MS. MARX advised as long as the committee grants Legislative
Legal Services authority to make technical and conforming
changes, the conceptual amendment would be incorporated in the
final draft.
3:03:18 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection and there being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 4 to [Amendment 9, K.14] was
adopted.
3:03:52 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection to [Amendment 9, K.14] and
there being no further objection, [Amendment 9, K.14, as
amended], was adopted.
3:04:36 PM
[HB 138 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 123 Sponsor Statement 2.25.2020.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 123 |
| SB 123 CS(RBE) Version O 2.26.20.PDF |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
SB 123 |
| SB 123 Explanation of Changes v. O.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 123 |
| SB 123 Sectional Analysis v.O 2.25.2020.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 123 |
| SB 123 Intent Statement 2.24.2020.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 123 |
| SB 123 - Response to S FIN questions 3.6.2020.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 123 |
| SB 123 Sponsor Presentation 3.3.2020.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 123 |
| SB 123 Presentation RRC ODT 3.3.20.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 123 |
| SB 123 Public Testimony CIRI 3.2.20.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/9/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 123 |
| SB 123 AIPPA RRC presentation 1-29-20.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 123 |
| SB 123 REAP Public Testimony.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 123 |
| SB 123 - Acronyms 2.29.2020.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 123 |
| SB 123 Public Testimony AKPIRG.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 123 |
| SB 123 - Public Testimony - Laing.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 123 |
| 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 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 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 |
| 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 - 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 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 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 |
| 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 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 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 - 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 HRES Amendment One - Spohnholz 2.13.20.pdf |
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 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 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 Four - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
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 Five - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 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 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 Ten - Spohnholz and Lincoln 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Eleven - Lincoln 2.21.20.pdf |
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 Twelve - Lincoln 3.3.20.pdf |
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 Thirteen - Tarr 3.5.30.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Fourteen - Tarr 3.5.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Conceptual Amendment Fifteen - Tarr 3.9.30.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Conceptual Amendment Sixteen - Tarr 3.9.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Testimony - 2.23.20 - 3.6.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| SB 123 CS(RBE) Fiscal Note - DCCED-RCA 3.6.20.PDF |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
SB 123 |
| HB 138 Testimony - As of 3.10.20.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |