Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/10/2006 09:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB484 | |
| HB360 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 360 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 390 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 484 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 360
"An Act relating to the regulation of public
accommodation water supply systems."
MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, STAFF, CO-CHAIR MEYER, testified that HB
360 grew out of the Department of Environmental
Conservation's (DEC) subcommittee budget process. The State
of Alaska regulates drinking water systems that are above a
Class C well, one that serves less than 25 people. He
explained that Class C wells were removed from regulation
because of funding issues and because the program was too
broad. He stated that these types of wells pertain to
private homes. He noted that the committee became concerned
in the differentiation between private homes and more public
access areas. He stressed that drinking water was the
foundation of public health. The bill is intended to set
standards for wells that serve the general public. He
pointed out the revised fiscal note from the Department of
Environmental Conservation.
Co-Chair Meyer asked what kinds of small wells would serve
the public. Mr. Pawlowski commented that small restaurants
would be such an example. Co-Chair Meyer noted that there
was no regulation for wells serving fewer than 25 people,
and that this was a problem when a small well served a
public day care or other small public facility.
9:55:14 AM
Mr. Pawlowski noted that requesting an annual test of a
drinking water source was a reasonable practice. He
stressed that the state ought be part of the oversight for
public drinking water.
9:56:00 AM
Representative Kelly expressed concern over adding
regulations when a responsible operator might meet the
requirements in any case. He asked if there was a way to
avoid such a costly program. He expressed concern that
adding an entirely new program might be overly expensive for
the state.
Mr. Pawlowski responded that in creating the fiscal note,
cost had been a concern. He also noted that this issue
pertains to nearly 3 thousand wells in the state of Alaska.
He urged that this was also a policy statement, and that the
costs in the fiscal note were as conservative as possible.
Representative Kelly cited experience in dealing with the
standards of drinking water and various water sources. He
again expressed concern over having regulations at this
smaller level. He noted that risks existed and citizens had
the right to pursue a civil law suit. He also noted that it
might place another burden on small businesses.
Co-Chair Meyer observed that one should assume that water
for a nursing home or day care is kept clean and safe.
Representative Stoltze asked if the RCA office has dealt
with this issue. He cited experiences with the RCA and the
costs involved, and wondered if this would be detrimental to
smaller businesses. He explained that there were many such
small businesses in his district, already burdened with
costs and regulations. He asked how this would help those
businesses.
Mr. Pawlowski stated that this regulation affects only those
small wells serving less than 25 people, which is smaller
than most small business, and not an actual water system.
Representative Stoltze noted that it might affect a small
subdivision in the more rural pockets of even larger cities.
He expressed reluctance to have DEC visiting these small
areas.
10:03:26 AM
Representative Holm asked if there had been a case of
illness that caused the change, or rather just an
examination of the regulations. Mr. Pawlowski noted
discussions in the Resources Committee of cases when illness
had developed, potentially from these types of water
sources. He pointed out the Public Health funding contained
in the fiscal note.
Co-Chair Chenault sought clarification for the types of
businesses affected by this legislation. He observed that
any business that was not a private home would fall under
this regulation.
10:05:12 AM
Mr. Pawlowski deferred to the director of the Department to
answer this question.
KRISTIN RYAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, testified
regarding the legislation. She stated that it required
regulation of small public facilities, and not water systems
that serve private homes, such as a subdivision, unless one
of those homes was providing a public service, such as day
care. There are a variety of public services captured under
this legislation. She estimated there were 3,000 wells of
this size that serve the public in some way.
10:07:42 AM
Ms. Ryan noted that two years ago, the regulations stated
that if water was from a surface water system, it should be
approved by an engineer, and tested for substances annually,
as well as being designed by a certified engineer. She
acknowledged that the fiscal note had been controversial.
However, she emphasized that the public should feel
protected with safe water. She noted this would require
four personnel for adequate testing for the current number
of small public wells.
10:09:34 AM
In regard to whether there were cases of illness, she stated
that it was difficult to actually prove the reason for some
sickness. She stated it was indeed a risk.
Co-Chair Meyer asked how many of the 3,000 wells were in
Anchorage. She noted that a large percentage, about half,
of public wells are in Anchorage.
10:10:57 AM
Representative Holm observed that the definition of a public
accommodation in statute reads: "and all other public
amusement and business establishments".
Ms. Ryan interpreted that to mean gas stations and office
buildings, and any facilities that provide business to the
public and have drinking water. She noted that the Resource
Committee discussed circumstances when an individual might
provide services out of their home.
10:12:33 AM
Representative Holm stated that he did not believe it was
important for the Department to interpret the statute, but
rather how the law might be misinterpreted.
Ms. Ryan acknowledged that interpretation would be subject
to individual regulators.
Representative Holm expressed that this bill might be going
too far into controlling water systems. He observed that
the definition contained lack of clarity, and he expressed
reservation about making changes through regulations.
10:14:43 AM
Ms. Ryan cited an example of how to write regulations that
meet the intent of the legislation.
Mr. Pawlowski acknowledged that a similar broad definition
of public accommodation was examined in a bill regarding
pesticides last year. He read from the definition, and
pointed out that it only pertains to a place that serves the
general public.
Representative Holm observed that the Second Amendment was
written to protect citizens from the government.
Co-Chair Meyer stressed that the regulations should match
the intent of the bill. He suggested that AS 188.300 be
examined to ensure that "public accommodation" was the
proper reference.
10:16:37 AM
Representative Stoltze asked if this legislation is
intended to supplant or to enhance the existing regulations.
Ms. Ryan responded that smaller water systems were usually
regulated in other jurisdictions and by local governments,
but she pointed out that Anchorage currently does not
regulate Class C wells. They do regulate private wells if
someone is selling a private residence.
Representative Stoltze pointed out that he does not see a
safety valve that would allow a local government to
substitute its regulations. He cited that the Department of
Environmental Conservation could be fairly stringent and
place undue burden on private individuals and small
businesses. He noted that running a gas station in a more
remote area was already difficult, and wondered what
protections existed for them. He stated that this kind of
regulation was onerous for such business. He opined that
the definition of public accommodations was too broad in
this case.
Co-Chair Meyer acknowledged that the definition caused
concern, and wondered if there was a way to add a greater
comfort with this issue.
10:20:38 AM
Ms. Ryan proposed that there were some exemptions in
regulations, and that smaller facilities other than day care
centers and other high-risk facilities would have less
onerous regulations.
Ms. Ryan added that the regulations were testing for very
serious elements in the water.
10:22:10 AM
Representative Kelly observed that the bill was sponsored by
request, but reiterated his concern over the fiscal note,
and adding a level of oversight to an area that is already
regulated. He cited an example in his area where a water
system of another size was put in, and people were unable to
drink the water due to a federal regulation. Then a new
level of arsenic was decided and the people were told they
could not bathe in the water. He pointed out the current
budgetary problems faced by the state, and questioned the
value of adding more regulatory activity with a large added
cost. He suggested they ought to seek ways to cut the costs
of regulations and reduce the burden to smaller businesses.
10:25:17 AM
Co-Chair Meyer stressed that those in a day care center or
senior center ought to be able to rely upon water quality.
He noted that a cost was required for this surety. He
stated the desire to hold the bill in order to re-examine
the fiscal note and cut costs.
Ms. Ryan pointed out that there were currently no standards
for the water systems in question.
Representative Kelly pointed out that the reason the state
did not regulate water systems for private homes was because
citizens would complain bitterly. He suggested that the
Committee ought to examine the cost of compliance with this
regulation.
10:28:15 AM
THOMAS STRATTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA RURAL WATER
ASSOCIATION, testified that his association is a non-profit
that provides training and technical assistance to small
water systems. He expressed thanks for the desire to
provide safe drinking water in more rural areas. He cited
his own experience in building a home and creating a safe
water system, and his desire to trust the safety of water at
a local day care center.
10:29:43 AM
He referred to the definition of public accommodation, and
stated his belief that the Department had done an excellent
job with language. He applauded the legislature for
addressing this issue and the Department of Environmental
Conservation for working with concerns.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if one did become ill from drinking
water at a public accommodation, whether the state was
liable for not providing adequate regulation. Mr. Stratton
stated he was not able to address liability. Co-Chair Meyer
presumed that one would first approach the private business
and then the state.
Mr. Stratton noted an example of individuals dying from
drinking from a water supply, and supposed there could be
lawsuits in the future.
Representative Hawker MOVED Amendment 1, labeled 24-
LS1468\A.5, Bullock, 4/7/06.
Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for purposes of discussion.
Representative Hawker MOVED to amend Amendment 1, to change
line 20 from "is used as" to "may be". There was NO
OBJECTION to the motion to amend Amendment 1, therefore it
was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG spoke to Amendment 1. He
related that there are over 3,000 homes that are served by
various types of wells in his district. He stressed the
importance of water regulation in the state. He explained
that Amendment 1 asks the Department to adopt regulations to
protect exposed water aquifers. It requires a fee to be
paid by a property developer who is developing around an
exposed aquifer that resulted from previous mining activity.
The bill is not intended to be special legislation, but
applicable to all areas of the state.
Representative Rokeberg gave an example from his district.
He stressed that there is a complete breakdown of regulatory
authority because the local municipality is looking to DEC
to take responsibility and vice versa. Over 200 people with
separate wells would be subjected to the activity revolving
around the development.
Representative Rokeberg referred to the amendment to
Amendment 1 on line 20 as being necessary because that has
been the point of contention between the DEC and the city of
Anchorage. He highlighted frustrations around access issues
and noted three years of dealing with DEC on the matter. He
pointed out that the fees will be paid by the developer and
should offset costs.
10:39:46 AM
Representative Rokeberg warned the committee to look at
private fiscal notes that result in costs to the private
sector. He emphasized that there is an expectation by the
public that public accommodations should have safe drinking
water. The RCA only handles economic regulation, not water
quality issues. He stressed that there are times to accept
some of the costs that go with the constitutional
responsibility toward public safety. This is such an
exception.
10:42:27 AM
Representative Hawker followed through with the intent of
Amendment 1. He questioned if "containing an exposed
aquifer" were the appropriate words to use. He suggested
"development on property affected by an exposed aquifer".
Representative Rokeberg related that the exposed aquifer has
to be a pre-existing condition. Representative Hawker asked
if the intent is that it must be a development that
surrounds and contains an aquifer, not downstream of the
aquifer. Representative Rokeberg said it could be within
100 feet of it. He spoke about contaminated water during
the development of the subdivisions. Representative Hawker
responded that the language reads that the "development must
contain the aquifer and must not be within 100 feet".
Representative Hawker referred to line 11 and line 14,
"property containing". Representative Rokeberg suggested
"adjacent to". Representative Hawker suggested "affected
by". Representative Rokeberg agreed.
10:46:53 AM
Representative Kerttula spoke of a concern with the words
regarding no improvements within 100 feet. She asked when
the construction should have started. Representative
Rokeberg said it would be a pre-existing condition.
Representative Kerttula attempted clarification.
10:48:20 AM
Representative Hawker proposed to change lines 11 and 14 to
read "property within 100 feet of an exposed aquifer" in
place of "containing and".
Representative Kerttula suggested changing lines 21-23.
Co-Chair Meyer suggested that the bill be set aside to have
the amendments re-written.
10:50:48 AM
Representative Kelly asked about if the area is regulated by
Anchorage. Representative Rokeberg replied that the only
regulation involves testing the water. Representative Kelly
asked if they could choose to regulate it. Representative
Rokeberg said he believes so. Representative Kelly
suggested that sometimes locals don't want regulation
responsibility. He suggested a separate bill.
HB 360 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
10:52:13 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|