Legislature(2001 - 2002)
06/08/2001 10:30 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 260(TRA)
"An Act relating to marine passenger vessels; and providing
for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Donley moved to adopt SCS CS HB 260 22-LS0948\X, as a
working draft.
Senator Ward objected.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Wilken, Senator Austerman, Senator Hoffman,
Senator Leman, Senator Olson, Co-Chair Donley and Co-Chair Kelly
OPPOSED: Senator Ward
ABSENT: Senator Green
The motion PASSED (7-1-1)
The committee substitute was ADOPTED as a working draft.
RANDY RAY, United States Cruise Ship Association, testified in
Juneau about the 16 "US flagged, US owned" smaller cruise ships and
the number of cruises occurring and planned in the summer months.
Mr. Ray spoke to difficulties that were not addressed in the
original version of the bill, saying "it kicks 80-percent of our
fleet out of the state in three years." He said a solution had been
found but that it couldn't be incorporated into the bill while it
was in the House of Representatives due to time constraints.
Mr. Ray explained the original version of the bill stipulates ships
could not discharge in port, which would put the small cruise ships
"out of business." He asserted that the small ships do not have the
holding capacity to store gray water or black water. He pointed out
that the marine sanitation systems on the smaller ships are
different in that they operate continuously. He stated that the
small ships would be better able to meet standards set by the state
if they are allowed to operate 24 hours a day, including while in
port.
Mr. Ray then informed that although new technologies exist for
marine sanitation devices in treatment of gray water, they are not
designed to accommodate the smaller ships. He proposed a delayed
implementation deadline of three years so that a manufacturer could
be secured to design and manufacture a suitable system.
Mr. Ray pointed out that the committee substitute incorporates the
Association's suggestions.
Mr. Ray thanked the legislature for addressing the cruise ship
wastewater issue noting the worldwide awareness of these efforts.
He remarked, "You are setting the template for the rest of the
planet." He attested that representatives from Hawaii, California,
Washington, British Columbia and New Brunswick have requested
copies of the committee substitute for their own review.
Senator Wilken referenced the United States Cruise Ship Association
Company Membership and Vessels handout [copy on file] noting the
range of accommodations from 36 guests to 163 guests. He asked if
any of the listed ships currently meet the criteria proposed in
this legislation.
Mr. Ray answered no.
Senator Wilken next asked if the ships would be compliant in the
three years allocated in the bill.
Mr. Ray responded it is "highly questionable" and that the
Association may come before the legislature at that time to request
a further exemption.
Senator Wilken requested the legislature be kept apprised of the
progress of the conversions.
Mr. Ray replied that the bill provides for the monitoring of the
conversion progress. As a result, he stated that it would become
known whether the criteria could be met.
Senator Ward spoke to his objection to the adoption of the
committee substitute. He told of earlier versions of the bill that
included the Alaska Marine Highway System, but noted that this
committee substitute, Version "X", exempts the state ferries from
the discharge requirements. While he agreed that the cost of
retrofitting the ferries would be high, he disagreed that
government vessels should be treated any differently than privately
owned ships.
Co-Chair Kelly stated that although he did not disagree with
Senator Ward's concerns, the reason for this legislation and the
special legislative session was political. Co-Chair Kelly opined,
"The unfortunate thing is that we're here doing legislation that
has absolutely no need to be done after Senator Murkowski's federal
bill."
Co-Chair Kelly agreed many changes could be made to the bill, but
stressed the intent to adopt it quickly and therefore avoid larger
expenditures in the special session. He stated, "There are a lot of
things that can happen when you start playing politics with the
State of Alaska as this Administration has done. It could cost the
people of Alaska; it could cost the fishing industry of Alaska.
Right now, the unfortunate thing is that because of Senator
Murkowski's bill, the waters of Alaska are clean. But unfortunately
the spokesman for Alaska has become - the commissioner of DEC
[Department of Environmental Conservation] who is telling the world
our waters are messed up. The governor is telling the world 'our
waters are messed up' and they're not because of Senator
Murkowski's bill."
Co-Chair Kelly asserted that the efforts involved in this
legislation are costing the tourism industry "a lot of money to go
through this shenanigan." He stated that this process is also
costing the people of Alaska money due to "tourism dollars that are
not coming because of this."
Co-Chair Kelly said the Marine Highway System should be included in
the wastewater discharge requirements but stressed it would cost
$10 million to bring the vessels in compliance. He opined the
"governor of this state has cost the people enough in this
charade."
Senator Leman thanked the co-chair for his comments and responded
to Senator Ward's comments clarifying that the House version did
not impose the same requirements on the ferry system as it did for
the cruise ships. He acknowledged the hypocrisy in exempting state
vessels. He stated, "It turns out the large vessels are willing to
accept this burden and the state, basically is not."
Senator Ward was unclear which versions of the bill included the
state ferry system in the compliance requirements.
Co-Chair Kelly understood that while the ferries were included, a
waiver was provisioned.
Senator Austerman requested the department speak to the matter.
MICHELLE BROWN, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation, testified that the Alaska Marine Highway System is
covered in the current committee substitute, and was covered in the
committee substitute passed by the House of Representatives. She
said, "The question is how many of them are covered." She answered
saying the Senate Transportation committee substitute covered the
ferries as "large passenger vessels" and the current committee
substitute provides for "five ferries and they will all fit in the
small vessel category." She pointed out that the ferries would also
pay a fee under the small vessel schedule, "so they are complying
with the rules consistent with vessels of similar size."
Senator Ward asked how the Marine Highway System vessels were
covered in the House of Representative's version of the bill and
whether they were all covered.
Ms. Brown affirmed that all vessels carrying 50 or more passengers
with overnight accommodations were covered in the House version.
Senator Ward wanted to know if the state ferries were "less
covered" in the current committee substitute.
Ms. Brown responded the coverage is the same.
Senator Ward asked if the $7.5 million fiscal note attached to the
House version would be reduced under the current committee
substitute.
Ms. Brown replied the amount would be "considerably smaller."
Senator Ward asked why it was less if the coverage were the same.
Ms. Brown answered that the fiscal note would be smaller for this
version than for the Senate Transportation committee substitute,
which includes more than the five ferries covered at a greater
expense.
AT EASE 10:46 AM / 10:47 AM
Ms. Brown corrected her earlier statements noting that in the
current committee substitute the state ferries are exempted.
Senator Ward stated that he did not intend to delay the process.
However, he stressed that the House version held the state ferries
to the same standards as the private vessels and this version does
not. He emphasized that he understood that the money required to
comply would have to come from other state services, such as
education.
Senator Leman corrected his earlier statements regarding the
inclusion of the Marine Highway System in the current committee
substitute.
Co-Chair Donley asked how long the witness has been commissioner of
the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Ms. Brown answered six years.
Co-Chair Donley asked if during her tenure she had ever requested
that the Administration introduce legislation to address this
issue.
Ms. Brown had not.
Co-Chair Donley commented that the matter was not a crisis until
Senator Murkowski passed federal legislation. Co-Chair Donley
stated that an agreement with the industry "would adequately deal
with this" until the next regular legislative session. He
commented, "Of course you haven't bothered to do anything about
this for the first six years."
Ms. Brown responded that the industry has not been regulated and
that the discharge practices were not known until recently. She
also noted the dramatic growth in cruise ship activity during her
six years as commissioner. She stated that the department had begun
working with the industry approximately one and one half years ago
to find out how much waste is discharged and the impacts. She said,
"We were all very surprised at what we found out in terms of the
quality and the amount of wastewater."
Ms. Brown addressed the matter of why the special legislative
session was necessary saying the Administration had "hoped it would
be dealt with in regular session." She suggested that the industry,
in addition to the state would like the issue "put to rest." She
stressed the urgency of assessing the discharge practices and
preventing problems.
Ms. Brown stated that the federal law is "a very good first step",
but cited testimony given by the representatives of the US Coast
Guard to the Senate Transportation Committee that the law is
incomplete. She said HB 260 would be complementary.
Co-Chair Donley asked the effective date of the bill and whether it
is immediate.
Ms. Brown replied that the date has always been July 1, 2001.
Co-Chair Donley commented that this special session is "political
grandstanding" and unnecessarily although he did support the
legislation.
Co-Chair Kelly asked the soonest date regulations could be in place
to implement the legislation.
Ms. Brown answered regulations would be drafted during the summer
and fall of 2001 and would be in place by the next tourist season.
She noted that until the regulations were in place, independent
sampling could be collected and new equipment could be tested.
Co-Chair Kelly stressed that none of the regulations could be
implemented until the following cruise ship season.
Ms. Brown countered that some portions of the legislation could be
implemented beginning on the effective date. She warned that if the
legislation were not adopted this year, another year could be lost
in the process.
Co-Chair Kelly remarked that the data collection activities could
happen under the federal Murkowski law. He expressed, "Just for the
press people in here, if the waters of Alaska needed to be saved,
it was Senator Murkowski who did it." He stressed that the
provisions of this legislation could not be implemented until the
next season.
Co-Chair Kelly pointed out that until legislation is implemented,
the FY 02 budget includes language to allow the industry pay for
the costs of monitoring and testing under the Memorandum of
Understanding between the industry and the state. Therefore, he
concluded that the legislation could have been passed during the
next regular legislative session.
Co-Chair Kelly reiterated, "There simply was no reason for this
special session" and that legislation could not be implemented
during the current cruise ship season. He made the following
statement. "…Which leads us to ask the question, 'Why are we here?'
I don't want an answer from you [Ms. Brown]. I would hope the
governor would answer that. But I've heard the governor accuse us
of things and I've heard the third floor and Jim Ayers accuse us of
things over the years that have been absolutely pathetic. The
demagogy that has come out of the third floor has been
inappropriate and has been a pitch that has never been in any
Administration that I'm aware of. So I'm going to throw a little
back at you. I'll tell you why we're here. We're here because
Senator Murkowski cleaned up the cruise ship problem and Governor
Knowles didn't get credit for it. So we came back here so he could
get credit for it. And now we, as senators, realizing the absurdity
of this special session, are just trying to get it through as
quickly as possible so it costs the people of Alaska as little as
possible and frankly, commissioner, so you'll be quiet because
you're costing the cruise ship industry and the small operators and
the gift shops a lot of money with your rhetoric in the press all
over the country about a problem that was taken care of by Senator
Murkowski."
Amendment #1: This amendment inserts "marine" before "waters" in
Section 6 of the committee substitute on page 15, line 31 and page
16, lines 4 and 7. The amended language reads as follows.
TRANSITION: INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF FEES. (a) For a
commercial passenger vessel voyage occurring on or after July
1, 2001, and before the effective date of regulations adopted
by the department under AS 46.03.480, enacted by sec. 1 of
this Act, providing for payment of the environmental
compliance fee, the environmental compliance fee required by
AS 46.03.480, enacted by sec. 1 of this Act, for each voyage
during which the commercial vessel is scheduled to operate in
marine waters of this state, is due and payable to the
department on or before July 31 of the calendar year in which
the voyage is scheduled to occur. An additional amount owed
under this subsection because of an unscheduled voyage, or a
refund request under this subsection because of a cancelled
voyage, shall by submitted to the department within 30 days
after the vessel's last voyage in marine waters of the state
in that calendar year.
Senator Leman moved for adoption and explained this is a technical
change to conform to the definition section of the legislation.
The amendment was ADOPTED without objection.
Amendment #2: This amendment replaces "shall" with "may" on page 4,
line 27 and page 5, line 10 in Sec. AS 46.03.463. Prohibited
discharges; limitations on discharges. The amended language in the
committee substitute reads, "Upon submission by the owner or
operator of a small commercial passenger vessel of a plan for
interim protective measures, the department may extend the time for
compliance of that vessel with this subsection." and "Upon
submission by the owner or operator of a small commercial passenger
vessel of a plan for interim protective measures, the department
may extend the time for compliance of that vessel with this
subsection."
Senator Leman corrected the affected line number on page 5 from
line 8 as it appears on the written amendment and moved for
adoption. He stated the amendment provides discretion in the review
of the plan for interim protective measures. He explained that if
an incomplete plan were submitted, the department would not have to
extend the deadline, but could require a complete plan before
granting approval.
Without objection the amendment was AMENDED and ADOPTED.
Amendment #3: This amendment deletes "operational" following
"department's" in the committee substitute on page 10, lines 9 and
11 in Sec. 46.03.482. Commercial passenger vessel environmental
compliance fund. The amended language reads as follows.
(c) The legislature may make appropriations from the fund to
the department to pay for the department's costs necessary to
prepare reports that assess the information received by the
department for the cruise ship seasons of 2000, 2001, 2002,
and 2003 and for the department's costs necessary to carry out
activities under AS 46.03.460 - 46.03.490 related to
commercial passenger vessels.
Senator Olson moved for adoption.
Co-Chair Kelly objected.
Senator Olson requested the commissioner address the amendment.
Ms. Brown detailed that deleting "operational" avoids confusion of
which costs could and could not be covered. She stated that the
Senate Finance Department of Environmental Conservation budget
subcommittee would then address those costs that could be covered.
She explained that the removal of "operational" would make the
language consistent with other statutes that use special funds.
Co-Chair Kelly maintained his objection because of the capital
costs involved.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Austerman, Senator Hoffman, Senator Leman and
Senator Olson
OPPOSED: Senator Ward, Senator Wilken, Co-Chair Donley and Co-Chair
Kelly
ABSENT: Senator Green
The motion FAILED (4-4-1)
The amendment FAILED to be adopted.
AT EASE 10:59 AM / 10:59 AM
Amendment #4: This technical amendment pertaining to Amendment #2
acknowledges "shall" is also included on page 5, line 7 and is also
to be changed to "may". The amended language reads, "Upon
submission by the owner or operator of a large commercial passenger
vessel of a plan for interim protective measures, the department
may extend the time for compliance of that vessel with this
subsection for a period of time that ends not later than January 1,
2003."
Senator Leman moved for adoption.
Without objection the amendment was ADOPTED.
Senator Ward offered a motion to move SCS CS HB 260 22-LS0948\X as
adopted from Committee.
AT EASE 11:00 AM / 11:04 AM
Co-Chair Donley amended the motion include a forthcoming Department
of Environmental Conservation fiscal note that reflects the changes
that appear in the amended committee substitute. He pointed out the
current Department of Transportation and Public Facilities fiscal
note is no longer necessary.
There was no objection and the motion was AMENDED.
The bill MOVED from Committee without objection.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|