Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/15/2011 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR17 | |
| HB178 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 17 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 178 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HJR 17- WATER & WASTE WATER REGULATION
8:09:51 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 17, Urging the United States Congress
to pass legislation concerning regulation of drinking water and
wastewater treatment by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
CHAIR MUNOZ explained that HJR 17 is the result of work the
committee performed earlier in the year after hearing about the
changes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requiring
such that some communities in Alaska would have to have more
sophisticated water treatment systems, which are very expensive.
Some years ago there was an exemption for 27 communities in
Alaska that allowed those communities to use secondary treatment
of their water. However, that exemption is in flux now and is
of great concern for these communities.
8:11:02 AM
PAUL LABOLLE, Staff, Representative Neal Foster, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that the communities with the exemption
have a 301(h) waiver. The EPA decided that it would not exempt
one particular community from that waiver and has hinted that
other communities may follow. At the same time, the EPA is not
allowing that community to apply for the waiver because the
deadline for that waiver expired some years ago. He explained
that it's a situation in which the deadline for the waiver has
expired, the community didn't apply for the waiver because they
had an exemption, and the EPA changed its policy and is no
longer recognizing the exemption. Mr. Labolle pointed out that
the aforementioned language isn't included in HJR 17 per the
request of the community, which is already under the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement. He noted that he has a
couple of proposed technical amendments to offer for the
committee's consideration.
8:13:09 AM
MR. LABOLLE informed the committee that the facility program
manager for Village Safe Water had provided an updated amount
for the amount of declining federal funds. Therefore, he
suggested the committee on page 2, line 16, delete "$49,000,000"
and insert "$42,500,000". He then suggested the committee on
page 2, line 18, change the "October 1, 2011" language to "the
proposed fiscal year 2012". In response to Representative
Saddler, confirmed that the reference is to the federal fiscal
year.
8:14:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN moved the amendments proposed by Mr.
Labolle, labeled Amendment 1, as follows:
Page 2, line 16;
Delete "$49,000,000"
Insert "$42,500,000"
Page 2, line 18;
Delete "October 1, 2011,"
Insert "the proposed fiscal year 2012"
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
8:15:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, as follows:
Page 2, line 31, following "emergency";
Insert "or to make the regulations less
burdensome for communities."
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
8:16:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that one of the
problems with the EPA is that it isn't allowed to include costs
as part of its argument for or against something. The EPA's
focus is on the impact to the environment without regard to the
cost to the community or the state. If that's the case, she
questioned whether language should be added asking the U.S.
Congress to allow the EPA to consider the fiscal impact when
making its decisions.
MR. LABOLLE directed attention to the language on page 1, line
14, which references Executive Order 13563 that addresses the
issue. He explained that it's not that the EPA can't consider
costs rather it's more of a situation in which the EPA
acknowledges that the cost may be a problem for the communities,
but not that the cost isn't EPA's problem.
8:18:23 AM
SHIRLEY MARQUARDT, Mayor, City of Unalaska, thanked the
committee for bringing forward HJR 17. As was pointed out
earlier, this is a problem for Unalaska. However, all the signs
point to it becoming an Alaska problem in the near future. She
emphasized that it's an incredibly expensive mandate from EPA
and only a limited amount of time to comply has been provided.
With regard to the language on page 2, line 14, which says "will
limit the ability of small communities to address other
priorities", Mayor Marquardt opined that it will limit "most"
communities. Referring to page 1, line 16, she then opined that
EO 13563 isn't being followed in the case of the City of
Unalaska. The aforementioned, that is "to be told by an agency
in D.C. that you're not spending your money correctly in your
community and you need to stop doing projects that you prefer
and start doing just what they've said," is very frustrating,
she related. Mayor Marquardt expressed hope that HJR 17 would
be forward from the committee.
8:20:49 AM
MARK LYNCH, Manager, City of Cordova, echoed the comments of
Mayor Marquardt. The City of Cordova has a similar situation to
that of Unalaska. Although the City of Cordova doesn't face as
large a fiscal situation as the City of Unalaska, it's still a
significant cost for Cordova. Mr. Lynch related that the City
of Cordova's primary concern is the cost. The City of Cordova
faces a cost of at least $10 million for improvements to the
city's water system, such that it would comply with the LT2
regulations. Additionally, the City of Cordova, as it has been
told, will face a cost of $10 million for forthcoming upgrades
to secondary treatment of its wastewater. The aforementioned
will cause a total impact of $20 million for a community with
700 households, and therefore residents will face an increase in
water and sewer bills] in the amount of another $200-$250 per
month, which is very burdensome. Another concern of the City of
Cordova is the LT2 rule regarding the elimination of
cryptosporidium. The City of Cordova has been testing for
cryptosporidium and has performed historical research, both of
which provide no evidence that the City of Cordova has or ever
has had any measurable level of cryptosporidium. Therefore, he
questioned spending $10 million to fix a problem that the City
of Cordova doesn't have. He noted his agreement with Mayor
Marquardt that this issue will be one of the biggest financial
impacts on the state in the near term.
8:23:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER recalled that at the prior hearing on
this topic, there was discussion of conversations between the
City of Cordova and EPA to reach a settlement. He inquired as
to the status of those negotiations.
MR. LYNCH answered that the City of Cordova hasn't had any
direct negotiations with EPA, rather the city has only had
discussions with the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC). To date, the negotiations with [EPA] have only discussed
the timeframe for compliance. With regard to the cost of these
upgrades, Mr. Lynch related that the agency [EPA] acknowledged
to the City of Cordova that it was aware of the cost impact [of
the upgrades], but has said it's not the agency's problem. Mr.
Lynch acknowledged that EPA is enforcing a regulation and isn't
concerned with the cost. However, the cost is a large part of
the issue for the community.
8:24:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the EPA within its mandate has
orders to consider cost or is it doing all it can do.
MR. LYNCH related his understanding that the EPA to date hasn't
taken cost into account. He said he was glad to see that
President Obama signed EO 13563, which specifies that EPA should
take into account the cost and benefit. However, he said he
hasn't had any discussions with DEC or EPA since the EO was
signed, and thus he didn't know whether it would impact the City
of Cordova's case.
MR. LABOLLE, drawing from his reading of U.S.C. 33, related his
understanding that although EPA has fairly broad latitude, it
specifies it has to consult with the state in almost every
section that discusses policy implementation as well as
enforcement. In further response to Representative Saddler, Mr.
Labolle surmised that EPA has the ability, but not the mandate
to consider cost unless consider one considers EO 13563.
8:27:19 AM
CHRIS HLADICK, Manager, City of Unalaska, testified in support
of HJR 17. He reminded the committee that the City of Unalaska
is in settlement negotiations with the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ). If the City of Unalaska has to go to secondary
treatment, it will spend on the order of $52 million in 2014.
He explained that breaks down to $32 million for the secondary
treatment and $10 million for the new LT2 plant similar to
Cordova. The City of Unalaska will also have to build new
landfill cells because secondary treatment will create sludge,
which will reduce the life expectancy of the landfill cells by
about 20 percent. The new landfill cells cost $9.5 million. He
noted that the city has had discussions with EPA regarding the
cost increases of 200 percent and EPA doesn't care.
8:29:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK returned to the issue of cryptosporidium,
and opined that millions of dollars are being spent for
something that doesn't exist. He then questioned whether a
"WHEREAS" clause could be inserted to address cryptosporidium
since it doesn't exist in Alaska.
MR. LABOLLE pointed out that the broad brush language on page 2,
line 7, would cover cryptosporidium.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK opined that the existing language in the
resolution seems to relate a general complaint and doesn't have
the shock the situation with cryptosporidium would have. He
remarked that he didn't want to delay HJR 17, but he wasn't
ready to offer specific language either.
CHAIR MUNOZ suggested that Representative Dick work on
conceptual language to offer in the House Resources Standing
Committee, of which he is a member.
8:31:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN moved to report HJR 17, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR
17(CRA) was reported from the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee.
8:31:37 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:31 a.m. to 8:34 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 178 DOJ commitment letter 45 day FINAL.pdf |
HCRA 3/15/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 178 |
| HB 178 Stats of OUCAVA voters.PDF |
HCRA 3/15/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 178 |
| MOVE Waiver letter.pdf |
HCRA 3/15/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 178 |
| HJR 17 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 3/15/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 17 |
| CSHB 178 Sectional E.pdf |
HCRA 3/15/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 178 |
| HJR 17 ADEC letter to EPA.pdf |
HCRA 3/15/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 17 |
| HJR 17 Unalaska.pdf |
HCRA 3/15/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 17 |
| CSHB 178 E.PDF |
HCRA 3/15/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 178 |