Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
03/11/2010 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB318 | |
| HB202 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 318 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 202 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 318-UNREGULATED POTABLE WATER SYSTEMS
8:34:38 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 318, "An Act relating to public use of
unregulated water systems."
[Before the committee is CSHB 318, Version 26-LS1357\R, Bullard,
1/29/10, adopted at the February 25, 2010 meeting.]
8:34:43 AM
PETE FELLMAN, Staff, Representative John Harris, Alaska State
Legislature, said that it's clear that water is the most basic
human need. He opined that with proper disclosure people should
have the right to choose. He further opined that if the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) had followed its
own regulations, this legislation wouldn't be before the
committee today and people wouldn't have been forced to drive 45
miles to haul water. He pointed out that the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 40 §141.2 provides for variances for up to
five years while DEC helps people upgrade their water systems
via time and funds. He stressed that the well in Salcha has
never tested positive for any contaminants.
8:36:29 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ recalled that once there are 25 or more people
using a well, a more restrictive standard is put in place. She
inquired as to how many people are using the well in Salcha.
MR. FELLMAN answered that up to 40 families use the well in
Salcha. However, DEC regulations require that each individual
be counted. He noted that the committee packet should include a
list of the individuals using the Salcha well.
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ related her understanding that many of the
individuals used the Salcha well seasonally.
MR. FELLMAN confirmed that to be the case, and added that the
list he provided to the committee covered a fairly broad
spectrum of time. He recalled that when the lock was put on the
well there were about 32 individuals using it, and thus from
that time forward only 24 individuals were allowed to use the
well.
8:37:57 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON requested that Mr. Fellman describe Salcha.
MR. FELLMAN related that Salcha, which is part of the Fairbanks
North Star Borough, doesn't have a government. Salcha is one of
the longest communities in Alaska as it covers about 40 miles
along the Richardson Highway south of Fairbanks. The geography
is such that most people can't drill wells for water unless they
live down by the river.
8:38:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to the number of children in
the Salcha area.
MR. FELLMAN estimated that perhaps 100 children live in the
area.
8:39:47 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ asked if DEC currently has a standard in statute
for unregulated water.
MR. FELLMAN specified that the department can provide variances.
For instance, for some wells DEC provides variances such that
there is unregulated water when [the well] is used less than 60
days. Therefore, in the case of Salcha the sponsor is concerned
that DEC didn't provide the opportunity to use a variance to
allow for the Salcha well to be upgraded. In further response
to Co-Chair Munoz, Mr. Fellman explained that DEC is the
regulating authority and CFR 40 has been adopted in the state's
regulations. He expressed concern that DEC didn't come to
Salcha and offer the opportunity to help and provide time to
address any problems.
8:42:43 AM
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, explained that HB 318
technically prohibits DNR from stopping the consumption of water
from a public water system that's posted a warning. However,
DEC assumes the intent is to modify DEC's authority since it's
the department that regulates public water systems. The
authority of DNR is restricted to ensuring people have access to
water, while DEC has the authority to regulate consumption from
a public water system. She opined that modifying DNR's
authority rather than DEC's authority was a drafting error. Ms.
Ryan then emphasized that the state has primacy over drinking
water from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which
means the state has primary enforcement authority for the U.S.
Safe Drinking Water Act. Therefore, the state via DEC
implements the federal laws in Alaska as long as an adequate job
is done and the state's rules are equal to the EPA guidelines
for the Safe Drinking Water Act. Unfortunately, HB 318 wouldn't
meet that standard as it changes the definition of a public
water system and allows a public water system to opt out of
being a water system so long as a warning is posted. The
federal definition, she explained, defines a public water system
and if that definition is met, then a public water system exists
and there is no opt-out provision. Therefore, if HB 318 passes,
the EPA would revoke DEC's enforcement authority and EPA would
enforce the [federal] rule that already exists. Ms. Ryan opined
that the legislation doesn't accomplish the desired effect of
eliminating any burden on the water system, rather it increases
the burden because the EPA would take over enforcement rather
than the state. She noted that of the many benefits of primacy,
significant funding is the top benefit. Currently, the federal
government gives the state $4.2 million to implement its rules,
while the state match is $1.6 million. In addition the state
receives funding that's loaned or granted to communities to
construct or repair existing water systems. The state's
capitalization grant this year is $13 million, which can be
utilized by small public water systems to comply with the
standard. This year's state capitalization grant is higher than
the average $8 million because of the stimulus recovery effort.
She then pointed out that there is a cadre of tools the state is
able to utilize that EPA wouldn't be able to if the EPA had
primacy. For instance, DEC can hire third party inspectors.
She related her understanding that Alaska is the only state she
knows about that pays private engineers to inspect and provide
technical assistance to water systems. In fact, about 75
percent of the sanitary surveys are performed by third party
inspectors. An additional benefit to the state having primacy
is the state's ability to grant variances or exemptions. The
EPA has drafted 23 rules with which public water systems have to
comply. The state doesn't have primacy for all of those rules
and is working on obtaining primacy for rules 17-19. She
explained that variances or exemptions have specific limitations
such that they can't be granted for a rule that could have an
immediate impact on human health. Variances and exemptions are
allowed for chronic contaminants. For example, DEC has granted
many variances and exemptions on the Kenai Peninsula for
arsenic. Variances and exemptions, she further explained, can't
be granted for water systems to never apply, but rather are
tools that allow time to find a better source of water, collect
necessary resources. Although variances and exemptions have
limitations, they're incredibly useful and allow many systems to
remain in compliance that wouldn't otherwise.
MS. RYAN informed the committee that in the case of the Salcha
water system, the [owners of the Salcha water system] don't want
to test at all. However, a variance or exemption to not test or
not be a water system can't be granted. She reiterated that
variances and exemptions can only be granted to provide time to
comply with specific rules. With regard to an earlier question
regarding standards, the state also regulates water systems that
fall below the federal definition, but doesn't regulate private
wells. For example, the state regulates, albeit to a much lower
standard, those water systems that serve less than 25
individuals per day and don't serve a duplex, which is the
position in which Salcha is. Therefore, systems such as Salcha
are required to do monitoring, although to a lesser scale than
federally regulated water systems.
8:52:08 AM
MS. RYAN, in response to Representative Keller, confirmed that
there is a definition of a "public water system" in the federal
regulations, which were implemented because of the Safe Drinking
Water Act. However, the State of Alaska also has a definition
of a "public water system" in its regulations that goes further
because it covers the smaller water systems that the federal
government doesn't regulate. Because Alaska's definition is
more stringent than the federal definitions, Alaska's program is
acceptable and has been approved by the EPA. If HB 318 were to
pass, then the state's definition of a "public water system"
would be less stringent than that of the EPA, and thus the
state's program wouldn't be approvable.
8:53:32 AM
MS. RYAN, in further response to Representative Keller, said
that water systems shift [in and out of being a public water
system and not being a public water system]. Furthermore, the
federal government is mostly concerned about water systems that
serve a non transient community, people who are drinking the
water all the time. She pointed out that there are many
federally regulated public water systems in Alaska that are only
considered a public water system during the summer. Ms. Ryan
clarified that a public water system is only considered as such
when it's a watering point with a well or a piped system that
feeds the water at the end of the pipe. However, 25 people
drinking water from a river without utilizing a piped system
wouldn't be considered a federally regulated water system.
8:55:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if it's certain that passage of HB
318 would revoke state primacy on drinking water. If so, she
inquired as to how long the process would take.
MS. RYAN answered that although DEC is waiting on the official
EPA document that would specify the aforementioned, DEC has been
informed that passage of HB 318 would result in the revocation
of the state's primacy. The department has also been informed
that the revocation of the state's primacy would occur rather
swiftly and that funding from this fiscal year would be
withdrawn, and thus may need to be repaid. Furthermore, the EPA
has warned DEC that the situation is being watched closely.
8:56:33 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON emphasized that just because the legislature is
discussing something, doesn't mean that it will happen. He
asked if DEC has shared the aforementioned with the EPA.
MS. RYAN explained that the EPA is aware of HB 318 and DEC has
related to the EPA the steps it will take to inform the
legislature of the impacts of HB 318. The EPA has warned DEC
that passage of HB 318 would result in the EPA not certifying
the state's program. Although she said that she didn't know how
quickly it would occur, the EPA seemed fairly serious, she
related.
CO-CHAIR HERRON expressed concern regarding this threat from the
federal government that it will pull current year funding just
because the legislature is discussing a local issue. He
suggested that Ms. Ryan relate to the federal government that
the legislation has a long way to go before it could become law.
MS. RYAN related that she has told the EPA the aforementioned.
She clarified that the EPA would only revoke funding if the
legislation passes and becomes law.
8:58:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to how much it would cost the
state to help Salcha achieve a better water system and
standards.
MS. RYAN answered that it wouldn't take much at all. The Salcha
water system is a ground water system that seems to be clean
from the limited testing the department has seen. For such a
water system, Ms. Ryan estimated that it would cost
approximately $15,000 for the initial engineer review and
checking to ensure the well is cased correctly. Also the
average testing costs for an average ground water system that
doesn't have any treatments is about $500 per year.
9:00:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related that she attended the National
Public Health Conference during which there was a presentation
on safe water, which focused mainly on Alaska. During the
presentation it was said that nationally about 99 percent of
water is clean, whereas only about 70 percent or so of Alaska's
water is considered clean. The presentation provided much
information regarding the impacts of unclean water on Alaskan
infants. She opined that physical and emotional damage occurs
when one in three children in communities with unsafe water are
sent to hospitals [outside the community in which the child
lives] and away from the parents. Therefore, she understood the
concern for the safety of humans, especially children. She
asked if DEC contemplates the aforementioned.
MS. RYAN said she isn't familiar with those statistics.
However, she related her understanding that Dr. Hurlburt,
Director, Division of Public Health, has related his personal
experiences when villages didn't have safe drinking water
sources and the high rates of disease and sickness in infants in
particular. Ms. Ryan emphasized that there is a marked change
in the health of communities when they have a safe drinking
water source. Since most of Alaska's communities have had safe
drinking water since the 1970s, she said that nothing has
dramatically changed since then.
9:03:08 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON inquired as to why the Fairbanks North Star
Borough isn't involved since Salcha is in the borough.
MS. RYAN said that while a public water system is often run by a
government organization, they aren't necessarily run by the city
and borough government. The DEC isn't concerned with who runs
the water system; the concern is that it's run safely.
9:04:28 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced the intent of the co-chairs to bring
HB 318 before the committee again next week.
9:05:18 AM
WARD HURLBURT, M.D., Chief Medical Officer/Director, Division of
Public Health JILL LEWIS, Deputy Director, Division of Public
Health, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), had his
testimony read by Jill Lewis, Deputy Director, Division of
Public Health, DHSS, as follows:
As I read the background about this bill, I certainly
sympathize with the residents of Salcha who clearly
felt that they were doing a good thing for their
neighbors, to provide a well for them in a community
location. I also understand the intent to try to
shield the residents of Salcha and other Alaska
communities from unnecessary and burdensome state
regulation. I first worked in Alaska as a physician
in 1961 when I lived in Dillingham, in the days before
the state and federal government began to collaborate
on projects to bring safe water and sanitation to
remote and rural communities across Alaska; a process
that is ongoing and certainly not yet complete. As a
young physician, I was impressed with a large number
of very sick toddlers and infants who needed to be
hospitalized and placed on intravenous fluids due to
severe gastroenteritis and diarrhea. In 1962 I
presented a scientific paper at the National Institute
of Health contrasting the incidents of this serious
and sometimes fatal health problem between breast fed
and bottle fed infants. The breast fed infants seldom
contracted this condition and it was all too common in
bottle fed infants and toddlers. Over the years, as
safe water and sanitation systems were installed
across Alaska the number of sick young children and
infants with gastroenteritis dramatically declined.
Today there are fewer in patients in each of the
tribal health system field hospitals than there were
in the 1960s. The major reason for this dramatic
change has been the reduced number of sick infants and
young children with gastroenteritis and those of
similar age who were ill with complications of now
vaccine preventable communicable diseases. The
regulations that were put in place to protect the
public from unsafe water were a response to the
serious morbidity and mortality occasioned by the use
of unsafe water by Alaskans. The regulations are not
onerous, but are common sense and responsible. You
have heard from DEC that they tried to administer this
regulation in a supportive, helping manner. You've
also heard that in the absence of an Alaska
regulation, the federal Environmental Protection
Agency will administer the federal requirements and
take away the $7.5 million federal grant used to
administer this public service regulation. While I
sympathize with the good intentions behind this bill
and the frustration on the part of the Salcha
residents who felt they were doing a good thing, I
must express concerns with this bill. The assurance
of safe water supplies is a core responsibility of
good government.
9:08:40 AM
MR. FELLMAN, in response to Co-Chair Herron, specified that the
well is maintained by the Salcha Fair Association as it's
located on the fairgrounds' property. One individual has
control of the keys to the well.
CO-CHAIR HERRON then inquired as to why the Salcha Fair
Association isn't interested in having a water system.
MR. FELLMAN related that the Salcha Fair Association and the
residents in the area are interested in having a water system
and the well has been tested twice yearly and been clean. The
issue is the cost of the engineering to upgrade the well. Mr.
Fellman opined that because of CFR 40, DEC has regulations in
place that provide, in certain economic situations, federal
funds to the state to upgrade, educate, and help [construct]
safe water systems. He explained that three years can be
provided to upgrade a well and then a five-year extension.
However, a certain standard must be met. Mr. Fellman opined
that Salcha merely needs a variance to meet a standard within a
reasonable timeframe. Such a variance could allow Salcha time
to obtain the funding for the engineering and upgrades.
However, DEC chose to cut off people from the Salcha water
system.
9:11:12 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ asked if Salcha residents pay taxes to the
borough.
MR. FELLMAN replied yes. In further response to Co-Chair Munoz,
Mr. Fellman said that he didn't know whether the Salcha
residents have petitioned the borough government for assistance.
9:11:36 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if DEC has worked with the borough
government since there is no tribal or city government related
to this well.
MS. RYAN replied no. She informed the committee that the
Fairbanks North Star Borough doesn't even run the public water
system in Fairbanks. The public waters systems in the Fairbanks
North Star Borough tend to be privately held.
CO-CHAIR HERRON suggested that [HB 318] provides an opportunity
to create a new way to provide safe water.
MS. RYAN reiterated that many privately held entities have
chosen to run their water system to ensure safe drinking water.
She explained that water system members can approach the
department or other funding sources to obtain resources to get
their system into compliance. The program provides millions of
dollars in loans and grants are available to communities to
perform upgrades. The department works with interested
entities, but the department can't make entities seek these
opportunities.
9:14:20 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced the intent of the sponsor and the co-
chairs to work on this legislation. He further announced that
the fiscal note will change to a net zero as he doesn't
appreciate the threat [from the federal government]. He
reiterated that HB 318 would be held over.
9:14:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if it's possible for DEC to give
loans to communities, which the communities could repay.
MR. FELLMAN acknowledged that there is federal money available.
He emphasized that the community just needed time and technical
assistance to upgrade the well. He opined that the community of
Salcha isn't opposed to gathering the $15,000 to upgrade the
well, the community just needed a variance in order to have the
time to work with DEC to craft a plan to upgrade the well. With
regard to health concerns, Mr. Fellman expressed concern with
the regulation that essentially isn't concerned [with the
health] of those using a water system when there are less than
25 people who use it.
[HB 318 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS HB 202 version R (same as CSSB 129 M).PDF |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 SB 129 |
| CS SB129 - AFCA Letter.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 SB 129 |
| HB 202 LTRS of Support I.PDF |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Plumbers Union LTR against.PDF |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 - AFCA Comments on Side by Side Comparison.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 - Municipal Code Adoption Processes.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 - Summary of Adoption Process.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Letters Against.PDF |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| CS HB 202 (version R) Sponsor Statement.PDF |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB202-DPS-FLS-03-08-10.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 - ISO RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER FACT SHEET B.doc |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |