Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
05/07/2018 09:30 AM House RULES
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 | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 64-UNIFORM ENVIRONMENTAL COVENANTS ACT
9:31:00 AM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the only order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 64, "An Act adopting the Uniform Environmental
Covenants Act; relating to environmental real property covenants
and notices of activity and use limitation at contaminated sites
to ensure the protection of human health, safety, and welfare,
and the environment; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was HCS SB 64(L&C).]
9:31:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt the proposed House
committee substitute (HCS) for SB 64, labeled 30-LS0446\T,
Bullard/Nauman, 5/5/18, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version T was before the committee.
9:31:44 AM
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Spill Prevention and
Response, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC),
explained the changes that would be made under Version T. She
explained that the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) had raised
concerns about SB 64, and DEC worked with the various branches
of DoD to find a compromise. She explained that the concern of
DoD was in regard to one section of the proposed legislation
that addresses notice of use restriction. She said states are
not able to put a covenant on federal property, which is why SB
64 proposed a notice of use restriction that would be applied in
areas where a covenant could not be used. She said DoD wanted
assurance that Alaska was not interested in those properties and
would not be restricting use of the property if the state put a
notice of use restriction on it. She said in legal terms that
is called an interest in the property. She said Version T
clarifies that is the case and DoD attorneys are satisfied that
that is how the proposed legislation will be interpreted.
9:33:34 AM
MS. RYAN answered a string of questions from Representative
Millett. She said Version T would not give additional powers to
DEC; it is a disclosure law that would ensure DEC is "recording
what's happening on the record of the property." She said this
would allow future buyers of a property to understand what they
are getting. She clarified that under the proposed legislation,
buyers would be informed when there is remaining contamination
above DEC's "cleanup levels." She said the proposed legislation
includes language for removal of the covenant, which is
voluntary, because the opportunity is always there for cleanup
of contamination. She said, "This only comes into effect if you
leave contamination above the cleanup level. So, this only
applies to ... a portion of our sites, because many are cleaned
up to our cleanup standards ...." She offered an example as
follows:
There was a location in Anchorage - a gas station.
There was a car wash. ... When they pulled the tanks
out of ... the gas station, there was contaminated
dirt around the tanks. They removed as much as they
could, but some of it migrated over to the foundation
of the building. We didn't make them take the
building out; we try to be reasonable; and in those
scenarios ... you don't have to rip the building out
to get the rest of the bad dirt; but when the building
is removed, we do want you to deal with that in the
right way. The land was transferred. Somebody came
in, ripped the building out, spread the dirt
everywhere, without knowing that it was above our
cleanup levels with petroleum, and put a restaurant in
..., and now we have a problem, because they have now
spread this dirt not only in their property but [also]
their neighbor's property. So, that's what this bill
was intended to avoid. ... If that person had known
when they removed the building, this would have been a
simple solution to remove that contaminated dirt and
not spread it everywhere ....
MS. RYAN continued her response to Representative Millett's
questions. Regarding the covenant, she said, "The terms have to
be agreed on by the ... property owner to negotiate a process
with the department." She said there is an appeal process to
change the covenant. She said if the contamination remains
above DEC's cleanup levels and the property owner needs to have
that information communicated on the title, then the department
can put the covenant on the property; however, she emphasized
that department's intent, which she said she thinks is clearly
stipulated in the proposed legislation, is for the department to
work with the property owner in a joint effort in which everyone
agrees "that this is the right path forward."
9:37:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT pointed to language in Section 1 of
Version T, [on page 4, beginning on line 11], which addresses AS
46.04.310. The language she highlighted states that an
environmental covenant "is valid and enforceable" even if "it is
not of a character that has been traditionally recognized at
common law". She asked for an explanation.
MS. RYAN replied the intent is for a covenant that is violated
to be enforceable as is the department's other statutory
authorities. She gave the example that if someone is told land
is contaminated and puts in a well anyway, then DEC has the
right to tell that person he/she cannot provide that unsafe
water to people. She said, "That is existing law. All this is
doing is communicating that restriction exists."
9:38:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT offered her understanding that under
Version T, AS 46.04.335, [on page 9, line 3], states that the
department can bring civil action if there is failure to comply.
She asked if DEC can do that now.
MS. RYAN answered yes.
9:39:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES noted there were two House committee
substitutes in the committee packet: [30-LS0446\N, Nauman,
5/4/18, which was never offered] and Version T, which the
committee had adopted as a working document. She inquired
whether DoD was okay with Version T.
9:41:19 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:41 a.m. to 9:43 a.m.
9:43:47 AM
MS. RYAN reiterated that DEC had worked closely with DoD to come
up with a version of SB 64 that DoD approved, and Version T
answers all of the concerns raised by DoD.
9:44:31 AM
ROBERT SHIRLEY, Regional Environmental Coordinator, U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD), in response to Representative
Stutes' question, stated that Version T meets the intent of a
letter from him dated May 4, 2018, concerning DoD consent.
9:45:05 AM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced the committee would entertain amendments.
9:45:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30-
LS0446\N.1, Bullard, 5/5/18, which read as follows:
Page 6, line 10:
Delete "(b) or (e)"
Insert "(b), (e), or (g)"
Page 8, following line 1:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(g) The department shall terminate an
environmental covenant if the environmental covenant
was required under AS 46.04.300 solely because of the
level or concentration of residual contamination on
the property, and the department determines that level
or concentration of residual contamination does not
endanger human health, safety, or welfare, or the
environment. The department shall provide notice of a
termination under this subsection to each person with
a current recorded interest in the real property
subject to the environmental covenant, each holder,
all other persons who originally signed the
environmental covenant, or their successors or
assigns, and any other person with rights or
obligations under the environmental covenant."
Page 10, line 6, following "(e)":
Insert "or (m)"
Page 11, following line 24:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(m) The department shall terminate a notice of
activity and use limitation for real property if the
notice of activity and use limitation was required
solely because of the level or concentration of
residual contamination on the property, and the
department determines that level or concentration of
residual contamination does not endanger human health,
safety, or welfare, or the environment. The department
shall provide notice of a termination under this
subsection to all persons holding an interest of
record in the real property subject to the notice of
activity and use limitation, all persons known to the
department to have an unrecorded interest in the
property, and all affected persons in possession of
the property."
9:45:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
9:45:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT spoke to Amendment 1. She explained that
if there is a change in status regarding a contaminant - for
example, if DEC lowers it - then the covenant would be removed.
9:46:13 AM
MS. RYAN said that is the intent of Version T; therefore, the
department sees Amendment 1 as consistent with Version T.
9:46:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if this is what the department
already does or if Amendment 1 is needed as a technical fix.
9:47:05 AM
MS. RYAN answered that Amendment 1 is not a technical fix that
is required and would not change Version T in any way.
9:47:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that Amendment 1 had been written
for Version N [a proposed House committee substitute never
offered], and he questioned where Amendment 1 fits into Version
T. He further questioned whether Amendment 1 would
significantly change Version T or if Legislative Legal and
Research Services would be allowed to make conforming changes.
9:47:45 AM
EMILY NAUMAN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency,
suggested it may be helpful to adopt Amendment 1 as a conceptual
amendment, since it was originally written for a different
version. That said, she noted that the changes between the N
and T Versions were relatively minor; therefore, she said she
would be surprised if Amendment 1 would not function as is. She
said she did not have time to check the page and line reference,
which may be the only changes that would need to be made to
conform to Version T.
9:48:30 AM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced she would grant Legislative Legal
Services the right to make technical and conforming changes to
any amendments that are adopted.
9:48:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN removed his objection to Amendment 1.
There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:49:04 AM
CHAIR LEDOUX indicated there was an Amendment 2 that she would
like to save for discussion at another time.
9:49:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report HCS SB 64, Version 30-
LS0446\T, Bullard/Nauman, 5/5/18, as amended, out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HCS SB 64(RLS) was reported
out of the House Rules Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HCS SB64 ver N.pdf |
HRLS 5/7/2018 9:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| HCS SB64 ver N Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HRLS 5/7/2018 9:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| HCS SB64 ver T.pdf |
HRLS 5/7/2018 9:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| HCS SB64 ver T Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HRLS 5/7/2018 9:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| HCS SB64 DOD Letter.pdf |
HRLS 5/7/2018 9:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| HCS SB64 DOD Email.pdf |
HRLS 5/7/2018 9:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| HCS SB64 Amendments.pdf |
HRLS 5/7/2018 9:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| HCS SB64 Amendment Legal Memo.pdf |
HRLS 5/7/2018 9:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| HCS SB81 Version U.pdf |
HRLS 5/7/2018 9:30:00 AM |
SB 81 |
| HCS SB81 ver U Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HRLS 5/7/2018 9:30:00 AM |
SB 81 |
| HCS SB81 Amendment.pdf |
HRLS 5/7/2018 9:30:00 AM |
SB 81 |