Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/27/2018 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
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 | |
| HB386 | |
| HB272 | |
| HB260 | |
| HB231 | |
| HB188 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 272 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 386 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 188 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 386-VESSELS: REGISTRATION/TITLES; DERELICTS
10:04:40 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 386, "An Act relating to abandoned and derelict
vessels; relating to the registration of vessels; relating to
certificates of title for vessels; relating to the duties of the
Department of Administration; relating to the duties of the
Department of Natural Resources; establishing the derelict
vessel prevention program; establishing the derelict vessel
prevention program fund; and providing for an effective date."
10:05:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, said that
derelict vessels have long been a problem that costs the state
and municipalities significant money and heartache. He
previously introduced a derelict vessel bill in 2013, House Bill
131, to try to make a better system. Previously, the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) had the sole responsibility for
cleaning up, yet the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities had responsibility for some communities so
interagency problems occurred. He referred to the PowerPoint
presentation and to slide 3 titled "A Guy Walks into a Bar,"
which depicts a photo of two vessels that tried to come into the
Homer harbor but were turned away. Once the vessels were turned
away, they were anchored up across the bay from the Homer Spit.
During the winter, the bilge pumps failed, the vessels sank, and
an oil spill leaked into the cove. The previous bill required
that operators turned away from harbors could not store the
vessels for over 14 days without removing all the hazardous
materials. He recalled the derelict vessels just mentioned cost
the state $360,000 to remedy, including haul out and storage.
10:08:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that the harbormasters and statewide
task force meetings hashed out the derelict vessel issue; that
HB 386 requires accountability such as title information, which
would be like the title registration for vehicles under the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The purpose would be to deter
derelict vessels from coming to Alaska.
10:10:15 AM
PATRICIA NICKELL-ZIMMERMAN, Staff, Representative Paul Seaton,
Alaska State Legislature, explained that Rachel Lord would
present a PowerPoint.
10:11:13 AM
MS. NICKELL-ZIMMERMAN said that the State of Alaska was home to
aging vessels that are moored or deposited in Alaska harbors,
shorelines and in State tidelands. Many of these vessels have
fallen into ill repair, leading to their abandonment in the
waters of Alaska. The State of Alaska, its municipalities and
ultimately Alaska citizens will be accountable for these
derelict and abandoned vessels without legislative action.
Alaska waters are home to over 9,400 vessels. By 2025, the
Alaska fleet will include roughly 3,100 vessels more than 45
years old. In addition, there are approximately 68,000 boats
registered in the state.
MS. NICKELL-ZIMMERMAN stated that current state regulations for
disposal and cleanup of these aging vessels contain "no teeth".
The state does not have a change of ownership tracking system
for vessels. Derelict vessels present navigation and
environmental hazards and disposal of derelict vessels falls to
the state or local municipalities without the financial means to
recover costs.
MS. NICKELL-ZIMMERMAN stated that HB 386 would provide a process
through the Department of Administration (DOA) and the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to stanch the accumulation
of derelict and abandoned vessels in Alaska. It would initiate
ownership tracking of a vessel that was like the process used
for motor vehicles through the DOA. It would require a title
for nondocumented vessels and expand the registration process.
It would update and increase fines upon conviction of unlawful
abandonment of a vessel. It would provide a nominal increase in
state registration fees and would create a requirement and fee
for state vessel titles.
MS. NICKELL-ZIMMERMAN related that the DNR would establish and
administer a derelict vessel prevention program. It would
outline a process for abatement of a derelict vessel while
balancing the public's rights with those of a vessel owner. It
would update and increase fines upon conviction of unlawful
abandonment of a vessel and provide due process to a vessel
owner with notices and hearings prior to impoundment or
disposal. She closed by stating that HB 386 would take an
important step toward responsible vessel ownership to address
the current and future derelict vessel issues in Alaska.
10:14:17 AM
RACHEL LORD, Executive Secretary, Alaska Association of
Harbormasters & Port Administrators (AAHPA), stated that the
AAHPA consisted of 250 members who represent most of the ports
and harbors throughout Alaska. She began a PowerPoint
presentation on derelict vessels.
10:15:15 AM
MS. LORD directed attention to the quote on slide 2, titled
"What's the Problem?" which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
"By 2025, the Alaska fleet will include roughly 3,100
vessels between 28' and 59' that are more than 45
years old...the Alaska fleet also includes 75
passenger vessels, tugs, and barges over 50 years
old..."
MS. LORD stated that the quote was taken from a McDowell Group
report that was done for the Alaska maritime industrial support
sector. This statement was considered a positive goal for ship
building; however, this highlighted a problem, that Alaska does
not have a "cradle-to-grave" plan for vessels. She directed
attention to a link to a YouTube https://youtu.be/S-SFGTzlA1g
that a private citizen created which illustrated the problems of
derelict vessels in Steamboat Slough in Bethel.
10:16:04 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 3, titled "A Guy Walks into a Bar,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
We love our boats, and we depend on our coasts and
rivers for transportation, commerce, and quality of
life. But there is no denying the immense cost of
owning and maintaining a boat. Those costs only
increase over time.
MS. LORD explained that boats can last for decades; however,
what happens is a vessel gets passed on to the next person and
as a boat ages it often has been passed on to a person least
able to maintain the vessel to keep it afloat. She
characterized this as a national problem.
10:17:25 AM
MS. LORD turned to the next slice, titled "Jakolof Bay 2012-13,"
which consisted of a photograph of a boat that sank. She
stated that the photograph depicts one of two boats that sank on
Christmas Eve in 2012 in Jakolof Bay. She explained that the
person who purchased the boats in Sand Point traveled to Kodiak,
then on to Seldovia and Homer, but was not allowed into those
harbors.
MS. LORD explained currently the statutes to address the problem
have minimally addressed derelict vessels. These statutes were
enacted in 1976 and minimally updated in 2013 under House Bill
131. Municipalities who have the authority to address derelict
vessels have been doing so; for example, Homer Kodiak, Cordova,
and CBJ [Juneau] all have strong ordinances to protect customers
and the [harbors], the working infrastructure, against vessel
owners who cannot pay moorages and endanger other vessels. At
the end of the day, the state and the smaller communities who do
not have the funding to afford them legal protections become the
[financial] losers.
10:19:11 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 5, titled "A growing Problem,"
depicting a map, and which read, in part, as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
ADNR has begun a database, but it is far from
complete. There are nearly 200 documented derelicts
across Alaska. we know many more exist, and the
number will continue to increase.
MS. LORD turned to slide 6, titled "The Public Pays The Price,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
With outdated statutes, our municipalities and state
agencies are unable to effectively prevent and manage
derelict vessels. Alaskan waters are a default
dumping ground.
MS. LORD stated that Washington has improved and strengthened
its derelict vessel laws in the past five years, which tends to
encourage dumping vessels in Alaska since Alaska really has
become a very soft target.
10:20:11 AM
MS. LORD directed attention to slide 7, titled "Solutions in HB
386," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Over a two-year period, the Derelict Vessel Task Force
identified major barriers and solutions to improve
derelict vessel prevention and management in Alaska.
MS. LORD added that the AAHPA, the Alaska Clean Harbors Program
created a voluntary ad hoc Derelict Vessel Task Force, with open
participation.
10:21:07 AM
MS. LORD continued with slide 8, titled "Task Force
Participants," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
ADNR, Mining Land & Water
ADEC, Spill Prevention & Response
ADOT, Ports & Harbors
ADF&G, Habitat
USCG, Sectors Anchorage & Juneau/Div. of Waterways
Management
NOAA, Marine Debris Program/Restoration
EPA, Response Region 10
AAHPA (Bethel, Homer)
Orutsararmiut Native Councils
Sen. Lisa Murkowski's office
Alaska Marine Response
MS. LORD stated that the task force, consisting of state and
federal agencies, [and participants listed on this slide], met
for nine full days over a two-year period. The Derelict Vessel
Task Force (DVTF) had pro bono legal support from the law firm
Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot, a firm with extensive experience
in issues related to derelict vessels and admiralty law.
10:22:03 AM
MS. LORD stated that the genesis of HB 386 came from the work of
the DVTF, whose participants reviewed case studies, current
methods used for disposing of derelict vessels and how those
methods could be improved, and other states' remedies for
derelict vessels. She characterized HB 386 as a strong bill,
one that was vetted by stakeholders, who assessed and reviewed
the current derelict vessel situation in Alaska.
MS. LORD provided a brief section-by-section analysis of HB 386,
noting that Sections 1-8 were changes to AS 05.25, the
watercraft chapter. The goal of the DVTF was to make as few
changes as possible, noting the state's boating safety program
was established in AS 05.
10:23:03 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 9, titled "Registration and Titling,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Agencies and municipalities have found establishing
ownership is one of the major hurdles to hold owners
responsible for derelict vessels. Requiring all
vessels operating in Alaska to be registered with DMV,
and beginning a titling system for vessels similar to
that in place for motor vehicles, are commonsense
solutions to improve accountability.
MS. LORD stated the DVTF determined that the only changes that
were necessary to AS 05.25 related to vessel ownership.
Currently 68,000 vessels are registered in Alaska; however, the
state does not know how many documented vessels are in Alaska's
waters. The provisions in HB 386 would expand the universe of
registration to include documented vessels, which has been done
in at least 26 other states, including Washington. She related
that currently vessel registration fees are $24 every three
years. The bill would increase this to $30 every three years.
The other change in AS 05 would be to establish a titling
program for the state, which would not apply to documented
vessels but would require titles for non-documented vessels in
Alaska. This would provide personal property protection for
owners, just as for vehicle owners. Boat trailers have
considerably less liability than a boat to people over time and
this bill would regulate vessels and trailers to be more in line
with the current DMV vehicle registration system.
10:25:11 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 10, titled "Increase Clarity" which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Agencies and municipalities statewide need increased
clarity for defining a derelict vessel ownership, and
for the impoundment process including clarified
hearing and notice requirements. SB updates Chapter
30.30 to bring clarity and improve utility of the
statutes.
MS. LORD explained that the remainder of the bill were changes
to derelict vessels under AS 30.30, which was written in 1976.
The DVTT rewrote that chapter in its entirety. Currently,
before a derelict vessel such as the Akutan could be dealt with,
agencies and municipalities must determine whether the vessel
would be considered as "abandoned" or as a "derelict vessel."
This definition matters because the path for impoundment and
disposal process differs depending on how a vessel is defined,
she said. This bill would dramatically improve clarity since it
would define all abandoned vessels as derelict vessels under AS
30.30. It would also clarify what it means to own a vessel, as
well as the impoundment process. Some have argued that the
state law may not be constitutional in terms of due process
under federal admiralty law. The provisions in HB 386 improve
due process for boat owners and spell out the process for
noticing, impoundment, and hearings for vessels deemed to be
derelict vessels.
10:27:05 AM
MS. LORD directed attention to slide 11, titled "Enforcement
Authority & Increased Penalties," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Current statutes restrict enforcement of derelict
vessel laws. One major way to reduce vessel sinkings
and prevent owners from walking away is to provide for
enforcement of the chapter to hold owners accountable
and prevent derelict vessels from sinking on public
waters.
MS. LORD stated that the current statutes limit enforcement for
derelict vessels. The provisions in HB 386 would increase the
enforcement authority and penalties and allow for civil
penalties instead of restricting derelict vessels only to
criminal penalties. The current enforcement of writing stern
letters to vessel owners has not worked and this bill would
improve enforcement.
10:27:40 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 12, titled "Clarified Liability," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Hearing concerns from agencies and public, Task Force
members acknowledged that it is important to be clear
that a vessel owner is liable for all costs associated
with the impoundment, storage and removal of a
derelict vessel.
MS. LORD said that it was difficult to hold someone liable for
walking away from an old boat when he/she does not have any
financial resources. The DVTF decided it was important to hold
these derelict vessel parties liable, regardless of their
financial resources. It was important to have strong laws that
can be enforced; that when the state and municipalities have
strong laws people are informed not to get into irresponsible
situations with vessels. The bill provides clarity for vessel
owners and enforcement authorities that vessel owners are liable
for all costs associated with impoundment, storage and removal
of derelict vessels.
10:28:36 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 13, titled "Streamlined Capacity,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Outside states have found significant improvement in
derelict vessel prevention and management by
streamlining their efforts through a statewide
program/point person. Having a point person at ADNR
will concentrate work that is currently being done by
numerous staff, will reduce overall costs, and
increase efficacy of derelict vessel management.
MS. LORD indicated that the bill would provide provisions for
the creation of a derelict vessel prevention program under DNR.
She reported that some DNR agency members attended a National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) conference on
derelict vessels. These staff returned feeling positive once
they realized that none of the states have the funds to dispose
of derelict vessels. States that have established a "point
person" and funded a proactive program to handle derelict
vessels have found the problem diminished over time. She said
that language within HB 386 was permissive to allow creation of
a derelict vessel prevention fund and to allow the legislature
to appropriate funds for the program. Currently, the public
does not have any state or local agency staff to contact about a
derelict vessel that has been abandoned on state waters even
though abandoned vessels routinely happen. She explained that
HB 386 allows DNR the statutory authority and capacity to
streamline the work related to derelict vessels. In fact, DNR
as managers of the state's public land and water, currently must
perform the work. Unfortunately, these staff must work on a
case-by-case basis to deal with abandoned derelict vessels, she
said.
10:30:30 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 14, titled "Cradle-to-Grave," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Addressing vessel disposal was outside of the scope of
the Task Force, but must be addressed. Through the
derelict vessel prevention program, the state will
have the opportunity to begin looking at options for
vessel disposal, scrap, and salvage solutions that can
benefit the private sector and be a reasonable
alternative to vessel abandonment.
MS. LORD characterized the cradle-to-grave view of vessel
management as important, noting that the DVTF had plenty of
ideas but did not solve the issues. She pointed out that the
bill contained permissive language within the prevention program
section to allow the department to consider some cradle-to-grave
options. Alaska does not have a lot of financial capacity, but
she said the state could still consider long-term planning
options related to derelict vessels to remove boats from
waterways before they sink.
10:31:25 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 15, titled "Juneau Empire Editorial
Oct. 15, 2015, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources...lacks
even the authority to fine...for littering.
...In places like Bethel, which has a dumping ground
called Steamboat Slough, the problem of derelict and
abandoned boats long ago broke the surface of public
awareness.
...we could instead simply mandate the registration of
all boats --commercial and recreational alike--through
the DMV. We could also mandate that boats of a certain
size, like all cars, carry insurance sufficient to
cover their salvage.
At the very least, we could grant the Department of
Natural Resources the simple authority to levy fines
on those who pollute Alaska's waters.
MS. LORD said that when the sunken tug Challenger sunk in
Gastineau Channel in 2016, that numerous people wrote letters.
She directed attention to the final sentence on the slide, taken
from an editorial in the Juneau Empire, which read, "At the very
least, we could grant the Department of Natural Resources the
simple authority to levy fines on those who pollute Alaska's
waters." She stated that this was something HB 386 will do.
10:32:01 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 16, with quotes from a Washington State
newspaper, the Chinook Observer, March 22, 2017, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
"Too many people get in over their heads, and their
dreams of ship renovation or making money from scrap
become a nightmare for the citizens of this state and
the marine environment.
...'A hole in the water into which you pour money' is
a famous definition of a boat. To the maximum extent
possible, we must ensure taxpayers are not the ones
doing the pouring."
10:32:20 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 17, titled "HCR 53 1990" which read, in
part, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
WHEREAS the state does not currently have statutory
authority to impose liability on the owners of
abandoned vessels...
MS LORD noted the slide had a copy of a resolution from 1990
that identified the problem; however, nothing happened until
2013, and now, in 2018, the derelict vessel law is just being
brought forward.
10:32:55 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 18, titled "Akutan Dutch
Harbor/Unalaska," and commented that there were many articles on
the Akutan that members could read. She said that she was aware
of only three vessels impounded by DNR under the derelict vessel
laws: two in Katchemak Bay, and the Akutan, which was impounded
in December at Unalaska. She stated that the state,
municipality, and federal governments worked on a creative
solution to dispose of the Akutan. She turned to slide 19,
titled "Questions," and asked members if they had any questions.
10:34:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked about the annual cost for derelict
vessels.
MS. LORD deferred to the DNR but noted that there was not
funding set aside. She acknowledged that considerable staff
time has been spent on derelict vessel and in terms of pollution
response, that the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) and the US Coast Guard have funds for cleanup.
10:36:00 AM
KRIS HESS, Chief of Operations, Central Office, Division of
Mining, Land and Water (DML&W), Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), responded that the DNR does not have funding set aside
for derelict vessel disposal. Anything that the agency does on
derelict vessels must be taken from the operating budget.
10:36:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked how much has been spent on derelict
vessels.
MS. HESS answered that in 2017, the DNR did not expend funds.
In 2018, the DNR expended funds for disposal of the Akutan in
the amount of $36,000. The City of Unalaska agreed to reimburse
those costs, she said.
10:37:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that a vessel becomes
derelict after it anchors any place it is not supposed to do so.
He offered his belief there could be many instances in which a
person would anchor a vessel for safety or other reasons. He
asked for further clarification that would address the timeframe
for the definition of "derelict vessel."
MS. LORD said that the definition for derelict vessel was
derived from current statutes. She explained that AS 30.30 has
several definitions for abandoned and derelict vessels, which
were combined. She referred to AS 30.30.030, related to
applicability. She stated that the DVTF worked with the DNR on
the definition and limitation on applicability. The chapter
does not apply in safety situations, she said.
10:39:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to page 12, line 22, of HB 386
and asked whether the language expanded the definition of
derelict vessel.
MS. LORD responded by advising that the goal was to be as clear
as possible; for example, some people might consider moored to
be tied to a dock versus anchored in open water. She stated
that the language would also apply to municipalities without
ordinances or other laws; this chapter needed to provide
explicit clarity to give them the protection and ability to
address derelict vessels under state law. The additional
language was more to provide clarity than to expand the
definition, she said.
10:41:45 AM
MS. NICKELL-ZIMMERMAN responded that the bill sections had been
thoroughly addressed by Ms. Lord.
10:42:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said it was disconcerting to her that the
state does not have financial resources to put towards the
problem of abandoned and derelict vessels. She expressed an
interest in exploring funding especially since these vessels
could impact fisheries along Alaska's coastline.
10:43:12 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that she would set HB 386 aside.
[HB 386 was held over.]