Legislature(2005 - 2006)
05/04/2005 04:52 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| SB155 | |
| HB280 | |
| HB243 | |
| SB110 | |
| Adjourn | |
| Start | |
| HB280 | |
| HB283 | |
| SB158 | |
| SB155 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 110(FIN)(efd fld)
"An Act relating to regulation of the discharge of
pollutants under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System."
KURT FREDRIKSSON, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, new
commissioner, provided written testimony:
Mister Chairman, members of the Committee, I am pleased
to testify today in support of this Bill authorizing
the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to
assume primacy for the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program from the
federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Governor Murkowski and I believe passage of this
legislation will allow Alaskans to better protect the
State's water resources and build a strong economy.
With me today is Dan Easton, Director of the
Department's Division of Water to provide you with the
details of how this bill was developed.
Under federal law all discharges to surface waters must
be permitted under the NPDES permit program to protect
water quality. Community sewage treatment facilities,
construction of storm water drains on more than one
acre, seafood processors, log transfer facilities,
ballast water discharge facilities, mining operations,
oil and gas operations, and fish hatcheries all must
have NPDES permits to operate. There are currently over
2300 regulated permit holders in Alaska under the NPDES
permit program.
The federal Clean Water Act is founded on the principle
that the rights of states to manage water quality
within their borders should be protected. The Clean
Water Act includes provisions for a state to assume
primacy from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for issuing NPDES permits for discharges to surface
waters within the state's borders. In states that do
not assume primacy, EPA runs the NPDES program.
Like four other states, Alaska has never pursued the
opportunity provided by the federal Clean Water Act to
shape the NPDES water pollution control permit program
to fit our state's unique circumstances. The bill
before you would allow DEC to develop a comprehensive
water quality protection program where all program
components, from legislative budgeting and oversight to
fieldwork and enforcement, are conducted here in the
state, where Alaskans can shape solutions to fit
Alaska's challenges.
Without this legislation, EPA will continue to be
Alaska's water quality permitter. EPA makes the permit
rules and review timeframes. EPA decides what goes into
the permits and who gets inspected. EPA decides how
Alaska's water quality standards will be applied to
specific discharges. EPA sets Alaska's water quality
priorities. EPA decides what's important for Alaska and
what's not.
As you know, Governor Murkowski has an ambitious agenda
for the responsible development of Alaska's natural
resources. The Governor has pledged to improve permit
efficiency without a rollback of environmental
protection. However, as long as EPA runs the NPDES
permit program in Alaska, DEC cannot fix what we don't
control. We can't establish appropriate performance
measures with the legislature for timely permit
actions, we can't establish the state's annual permit
and environmental protection priorities, and we can't
offer a timely appeal process that allows conflicts to
be judged by Alaskans in Alaska.
A state run NPDES permit program won't be free. When
EPA issues permits in Alaska the costs are borne by the
U.S. taxpayer. A state permit program will shift
authority and responsibility to the state, but it will
also shift some of the costs to permit holders and the
state.
State primacy for the NPDES permit program is a
critical investment in the stewardship of Alaska's
environment and development of our natural resources.
It will better align regulatory requirements with real
Alaskan conditions and the real risks to Alaska's water
quality. A faster, more effective state permit program
will be based on Alaska's priorities - not national
"one-size-fits-all" priorities. DEC's permit
priorities; level of effort and performance measures
would be subject to annual review and approval by
Alaskans through their elected officials in the state
Legislature.
If Alaska is to realize the promise of resource
development, we must accept responsibility for managing
Alaska's water quality by assuming primacy for the
NPDES program.
It's time we invest in the development of Alaska's
resources by taking responsibility from the federal
government to protect Alaska's environment. I
respectfully ask that you vote to pass SB 110.
9:41:12 AM
DAN EASTON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WATER, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, explained that SB 110 was the
result years of effort, starting in 2002. The legislation
began with SB 326, which asked the Department to take a look
at the consequences and benefits of state primacy for the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit program. He gave a brief history of the process of
looking at primacy.
He acknowledged that there was a sizeable fiscal note. The
Department currently has a staff of 30 and budget of $3.3
million, which would become part of a NPDES program. Senate
Bill 326 indicated that there would need to be a staff of 43
and a budget of $4.8 million dollars [to implement state
primacy]. The fiscal note indicates the difference. The
Division of Water welcomes the opportunity for an all
Alaskan program.
9:43:11 AM
Co-Chair Meyer referred to the fiscal note and questioned if
the industry fees are detailed in the program receipts. Mr.
Easton clarified that it would take two years to implement
the primacy. The fiscal note reflects an incremental
increase as the state does more and more and can charger
more and more. It will start modestly and build. The
Division already collects some fees. He observed that, on
average, fees would increase by 1.8%.
9:44:21 AM
Representative Joule voiced concern that primacy might
adversely affect the fisheries resource. He questioned the
zero fiscal note from Department of Fish and Game.
Representative Joule noted that the federal government
recognizes tribal governments and noted that state primacy
would affect their standing.
Commissioner Fredriksson stressed that it is a questioned of
accountability. He felt that the state could be more
accountable than the federal EPA. He acknowledged that the
Department of Fish and Game does play a roll. He felt that
state primacy would allow them to be more responsive to
local concerns and did not envision any change. The same
entities would still be involved in review of the NPDES
permits.
9:48:24 AM
Representative Joule asked if the Department would actively
seek some of that consultation. Commissioner Fredriksson
replied yes. He maintained that the state would be able to
work with the tribes in the constructing and permitting
process.
9:49:27 AM
JON TILLINGHAST, SEALASKA CORPORATION, spoke in support of
the legislation. He noted that Sealaska is a federally
recognized tribe. He stressed that that consultation with
EPA has not always been good, while their consultation with
the Department of Environmental Conservation had been good.
9:51:19 AM
KEVIN RITCHIE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE,
noted that the AML supports the bill. He observed that the
legislation would enhance local control and provide greater
access and accountability.
9:52:06 AM
DICK COOSE, FORMER ASSEMBLY MEMBER, KETCHIKAN, (via
teleconference) voiced support for the legislation. The
state needs to control its own future. He maintained that
state management would be better than that of the federal
EPA. He felt that the Department of Environmental
Conservation uses better science and works better with
people in the permitting process. He recounted problems with
EPA.
9:55:44 AM
LOIS EPSTEIN, COOK INLET KEEPER, ANCHORAGE, (via
teleconference) expressed concern with the legislation and
summarized written testimony (copy on file.)
She stated that SB 110 accurately reflects the wish list
from the industry members of the Department of Environmental
Conservation's workgroup studying NPDES. She noted that
because public interest groups were not allowed to
participate in the work group their concerns were never
addressed. She requested changes be made to the committee
substitute in sections 1(b)(2) and 4(h)(3). She urged
opposition to passage of the legislation.
She listed three reasons for their opposition:
1. The high governmental cost of the permitting
program; which only will grow as the state's
industrial growth increases,
2. Ensuring a high-quality permitting program to
protect Alaska's salmon and ether fish.
3. Ensuring governmental accountability to the public
and Tribes,
Ms. Epstein continued to explain that permittees could
suffer with passage of the legislation. She maintained that
according to SB 11's fiscal note, the legislature would need
to appropriate, at a minimum, $1.5 million each year. These
costs are for a service - wastewater discharge permit
issuance - that the state now gets for free, This is a major
change to DEC operations. She observed that the workgroup
limited permit fees at 16% of program costs (compared to 57%
of program costs paid by permittees in Oregon and 75-80%
paid in Washington). She maintained that the increased costs
would come from other state initiatives such as education or
road maintenance. She asserted that industrial growth or
growth among businesses with less than 20 employees could
further increase costs. She stressed that the DEC fiscal
note, prepared on April 25, does not show how fines will
meaningfully reduce these new costs. The Fiscal Note does
not estimate the NPDES fines likely to be received, only
total fines historically received for all DEC programs.
Ms. Epstein pointed out that the Department of Environmental
Conservation would not get any more federal funding, since
the state receives the maximum amount allowed for
administering its Clean Water Act programs. While federal
funding is projected to continue at the current level, the
federal budget process in future years may decrease this
amount, resulting in additional costs to the state.
If the legislature fails to fund the program adequately in
the futureit is likely that permit issuance would be slowed
7
and permit errors may occur, Since there is virtually no
chance that EPA will take back the permitting program once
it has been given to the state, permittees will suffer due
to insufficient general fund resources.
The workgroup's report states that permit fees "are expected
to increase by a factor of 1.8, a substantial increase,"
including increases to municipal permit fees. Thus, both
state and local costs will increase significantly should the
state obtain NPDES primacy.
Fiscal Note cost estimates are arguably low because proposed
DEC staffing levels are insufficient to implement the
program adequately. If the program is not carried out with
sufficient technical and enforcement staff, water quality
and fish habitat will decline. Currently, a total of 51
full-time equivalent (FTE) employees from EPA and DEC carry
out the permitting program. DEC estimates reduce this number
to 43 ETE, including a 38% reduction in program development
staff (e.g., water quality standards staff), a 28% reduction
in permitting staff, and a 16% reduction in compliance and
enforcement staff.
Ms. Epstein asserted that the reductions are serious and
would change the nature and timing of permit issuance. She
stressed that they are not opposed to NPDES primacy, but
expressed concern the state of Alaska is trying to "do it on
the cheap". She noted that the state of Alaska expects to
spend only 52% of the resources that Washington State spends
per permit.
Ms. Epstein requested that the legislature obtain
additional, detailed information from DEC on the adequacy of
its staffing estimates, especially for technical and
enforcement staff, and on the likelihood of EPA approving
the permitting program with serious staff reductions in a
state with numerous, large industrial operations.
"Additionally, Cook Inlet Keeper and industry- members
of the workgroup share a concern about the limited
technical expertise at DEC and the likely use of
consultants to develop permits. Problems with the use
of consultants include potential conflicts of interest
and the lack of long-term DEC staff experience with
particular industries, which can result in technical
deficiencies and costly staff inefficiencies, though
conflicts of interest were discussed in the workgroup,
Section 4(h)(4) needs to be amended to specifically
prevent conflicts of interest for DEC consultants."
Ms. Epstein summarized that NPDES primacy is a major
undertaking with serious fiscal, fish and governmental
accountability implications.
10:04:02 AM
MIKE POLLEN, NTL ALASKA, INC, (NAI), FAIRBANKS, (via
teleconference) noted that he had provided testimony to his
representatives. He related a couple instances that occurred
to him personally with testing laboratories in Fairbanks. He
stressed that the EPA has not been timely in coming forward
in providing standards or permits.
He stated that he has worked with both the EPA and the
Department. He felt that Department of Environmental
Conservation staff are more confident and have the skills
require for implementing the program. He supported the
legislation, which is an economic issue and stressed the
impact on mining and gas line project, which could be held
hostage by a badly written contract and/or permit. He urged
passage and funding of the positions.
10:08:51 AM
STEPHANIE MADSEN, VICE PRESIDENT, PACIFIC SEAFOOD
ASSOCIATION PROCESSORS, noted that she participated in the
workgroup. She stressed that they are not limited to paying
16 percent of the Department of Environmental Conservation
budget. She observed that under HB 360 in 2000, there was a
formula of direct costs identified by the department. She
acknowledged that the direct costs would go up. She felt
that the increase costs would be worth it to have Alaskans
interpreting Alaska water standards. She emphasized that the
federal Clean Water Act would guide the program and EPA
would still be available for consultations. She urged
passage of the legislation.
10:11:09 AM
CS SB 110 (FIN)(efd fld) was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|