Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/15/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB155 | |
| HB107 | |
| HB19 | |
| HB67 | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| HB 19 | |||
| HB 107 | |||
| = | HB 155 | ||
| = | SB 98 | ||
| = | HB 66 | ||
| = | HB 67 | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 19
An Act relating to pesticides and broadcast chemicals;
and providing for an effective date.
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, explained
that there are three parts to the legislation and that he
would address each separately.
The first four sections provide Department of Environmental
Conservation authority to charge a fee to manufacturers who
register pesticides and broadcast chemicals for sale or
distribution in the State. He added that every state in the
nation requires chemical companies to register their
chemicals with the appropriate state agency and that Alaska
is the only state that does not charge a registration fee.
Mr. Pawlowski noted that HB 19 would not establish a
specific fee in statute, but rather sets a ceiling on the
fee that the Department could charge a manufacturer. By
putting the fee in regulation with a limit, allows
flexibility to the Department to ensure that chemicals that
do not have a large enough market in Alaska to support that
annual fee, not to bear it.
Mr. Pawlowski pointed out that Section 6 contains other
important provisions.
· The first portion of Section 6 (Lines 29 through 31)
requires a person applying pesticides or broadcast
chemicals in a public place, be licensed or
authorized by the Department.
· Classes and training required for certification are
free, but the legislation provides a charged fee of
up to $25 for the license. Fees collected through
registration and licensing would support the
regulations and enforcement of the State's pesticide
and broadcast chemicals. At present time, the
programs are supported largely with general funds.
· The final provision in legislation is also found in
Section 6, Line 31, Page 3. That section directs
the Department to promulgate a reasonable public
notice requirement that includes written notice
posted on the application site as to when pesticides
are applied in a public place. He noted that a
large portion of the public is interested in the
chemicals that they are exposed to. Public notice
gives the public an opportunity to make decisions
for themselves about what they expose themselves to.
Mr. Pawlowski summarized that the essential underlying
purpose of HB 19 is to create a pesticide program in Alaska,
which the public can have confidence in and supported by the
sector being regulated.
2:39:01 PM
Co-Chair Meyer advised that Alaska is the only state that
does not have a registration fee to cover those costs. Mr.
Pawlowski acknowledged that was correct. No fee is charged
for the chemical registration and that the costs were bore
by the General Fund.
Mr. Pawlowski asked the Department of Environmental
Conservation to address the fiscal note. He noted that the
fee is based largely on an assumption of how many chemicals
would be registered in the State.
Representative Weyhrauch asked the definition of "broadcast
chemical". Mr. Pawlowski stated that it is defined as any
chemical under a certain class that is broadcast into the
air. It can include chemicals that are used to suppress
fires and/or oil spills. The definition is large.
Representative Weyrauch inquired if roadside herbicides
would be included. Mr. Pawlowski replied they would. In
response to further questions by Representative Weyrauch,
Mr. Pawlowski explained that herbicides would have to be
applied in a public place. He referenced the definition of
public place, Section 6, Page 4, Lines 3-8.
Representative Weyrauch asked about applications to bed and
breakfasts; discussion followed. He asked why hotels,
motels and restaurants would be excluded. Mr. Pawlowski
pointed out that grouping is covered largely by the
Department of Environmental Conservation's food code.
2:42:38 PM
KRISTIN RYAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, ANCHORAGE,
responded to concerns voiced by Representative Weyhrauch.
She advised that setting the fee rate in statute could be
problematic and that the proposed fee would be sufficient
based on current costs.
Representative Weyhrauch inquired why those fees were
chosen. Ms. Ryan responded that when the Department
determined what it would take to do the work, assuming 40%
decide not to register, the Division would need to charge
about $105 dollars per product to generate the revenue
needed. The $120 dollar number would provide leeway to
change.
Representative Weyhrauch believed that the base of the
fiscal note was $125 dollars.
2:46:10 PM
Representative Weyhrauch asked at what point does the State
make money. Ms. Ryan explained that the fiscal note would
have the general fund contribution eliminated by FY08. At
that time, the State would no longer be paying $119 thousand
dollars to support the program. In response to
Representative Weyrauch, Ms. Ryan indicated that the entire
cost of the program would be $384 thousand dollars. The
costs bore by fees would be $382 thousand dollars and with
the reductions would equal the $119 thousand general fund
dollars currently in the program.
Vice-Chair Stoltze inquired which industries, professions or
"quasi-State" agencies would be impacted the most by the
legislation. Ms. Ryan noted that the fee would be generated
by outside chemical manufacturers. She added that other
impacted would be the outside user. She related which
businesses would be exempt and regulated by other means.
There would no significant changes for farmers.
2:50:09 PM
Co-Chair Meyer referenced the query made by Representative
Weyhrauch regarding bed and breakfasts. Ms. Ryan offered to
check with the Department's attorney regarding inclusion of
that group.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if bars would be included. Ms. Ryan
said that bars would be considered a private area frequented
by the public and would be included. Co-Chair Meyer asked
how they would be notified. Ms. Ryan discussed the
regulations and how the public process and notification
process would be handled with signage posted, etc.
Co-Chair Meyer questioned a person's right-of-way portion of
their yard. Ms. Ryan responded that technically, it belongs
to the municipality. She did not know.
Representative Kelly inquired if "the legislation was
attempting to tax and regulate". He thought that an
attrition rate could happen and if that would be okay. Ms.
Ryan acknowledged that there is public concern and that the
attrition rate is something not intended. She explained
that there is a waiver process for new chemicals.
2:55:19 PM
Representative Kelly asked if any other states had found an
effective way to deal with the issues referred to by
Representative Weyhrauch. Ms. Ryan stated that Alaska is
not using any other state as a model as they tend to be a
bit more extreme than Alaska, however, by exempting hotels,
motels and restaurants, the Department thought that they had
eliminated low exposure areas. The intent was to address
multi-family dwellings.
Representative Kelly commented that unintentional problems
were being created and the costs associated with the
legislation appear high. Ms. Ryan noted that the Department
is very cautious about growth and that since 1992, only one
position has been added to the Department.
2:58:56 PM
Mr. Pawlowski responded to concerns of Representative Kelly
in dealing with the certificated applicators and charging a
fee. He noted discussion with the certified applicators and
the agreement that resulted. Health concerns are out there
and the right to know is important. He addressed fiscal
concerns and the level of service needed. The language on
Page 2, Section 3(a), addresses what can be charged and how
the Department can use those funds.
Representative Hawker added to the discussion, asking if HB
19 was a public interest bill or a revenue generating
measure. He asked if the sponsor had considered the
"elasticity in the market", which could result in a dramatic
loss of revenue. Ms. Ryan acknowledged that there is some
truth in that possibility, noting that some companies do not
want to register in Alaska. She pointed out that the
Department is committed to establishing a waiver process.
It is important that research is not restricted nor hinders
the use of new products. Some new products are safer and
better for the environment. Representative Hawker
acknowledged that he does not know the answer to these
questions and recommended adding language to address such
concerns.
Representative Hawker referred to the fiscal note and the
addition of new personnel. He asked if the new third person
could be a position not budgeted at present time but funded
later as the program develops and the needs the increase.
3:05:40 PM
Co-Chair Meyer supported the idea. Representative Hawker
recommended that the Committee eliminate the third person
from the Department's fiscal note.
3:06:55 PM
DR. ARNDT VON HIPPEL, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
RETIRED HEART SURGEON, ANCHORAGE, voiced support for the
bill and spoke to public health issues that it addresses.
He provided a personal situation in which a neighbor sprayed
aphids, which nearly cost Dr. Von Hippel's life. He
reiterated strong support for the legislation.
Dr. Van Hippel advised that outdoor spray of pesticides
violates label warnings. He believed that those who spray
pesticides for non-agricultural purposes should loose their
licenses. He urged every victim sue.
Dr. Van Hippel stressed that he does not want notification
that he must seal or leave his home while a sprayer
contaminates everything. He pointed out that there is a
constitutional right to privacy. Tons of poisons have
already been sprayed in Alaska with no effect on the spruce
beetle problem. Dr. Van Hippel encouraged that soap and
water work well on most concerns and questioned any use of
pesticides. It is not known how long the chemicals last in
the environment.
3:10:59 PM
KEN PERRY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), GENERAL MANAGER,
PEST CONTROL OPERATORS, ANCHORAGE, testified against the
legislation and urged that the Committee not pass the bill,
by falling victim to the environmental extremists promoting
it. He stated that the proposed charge would be punitive
and dedicated to anti-pesticide regulation. He warned that
an attempt to make law in an area already closely governed
by the federal government is dangerous. Mr. Perry pointed
out that concerns of exposure are addressed on every label.
He reiterated his opposition to the legislation.
3:15:15 PM
EMILY NENON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ALASKA
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY,
ANCHORAGE, pointed out that the legislation addresses an
Alaskan health issue. She commented on what other states
have done regarding the issue. She added that the
education, information and public notice process required
would be a good step to providing reasonable public notice
and that the language in the committee substitute was well
in line with that of other states.
3:16:59 PM
PAM MILLER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), BIOLOGIST,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS,
ANCHORAGE, stated that Alaska Community Action on Toxics
(ACAT) strongly supports HB 19. Enactment of the bill would
be an important first step in assuring the public's right to
know about pesticide applications. Children, elderly
people, and those with chronic illnesses are particularly
susceptible to adverse health effects from pesticide
exposure.
Ms. Miller continued, pesticide use occurs in places
frequented in our daily lives, such as parks, public lands
and buildings and grounds, transportation and utility right
of way, schools, etc. Although there are more than 5,700
pesticides registered in Alaska, there is no reliable system
to track the amounts and locations they are used.
Ms. Miller noted that ACAT has done extensive research on
the health effects of pesticides using peer-reviewed
scientific and medical literature. Support of the bill
stems from research and experience and working with the
Anchorage School District (ASD).
Ms. Miller advised that Alaska is the only state that does
not require a fee for pesticide registration. She stressed
that the provisions of the bill require a modest
registration fee.
Ms. Miller summarized what HB 19 would accomplish:
· Protects public health, especially for children and
those more vulnerable to the harmful effects of
pesticides;
· Promotes good decisions about pest management; and
· Enhances community right to know and transparency
about pesticide use.
3:22:28 PM
KATIE ASPEN GAVENUS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
STUDENT, HOMER, noted that she was a senior at Homer High
School. She testified in support of the legislation. She
thought that teenagers were particularly vulnerable to
pesticides, as they can disrupt hormone balance. She
reiterated her strong support for HB 19.
DYLAN WEISER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), VICE
PRESIDENT, KACHEMAK BAY CONSERVATION SOCIETY, HOMER, spoke
in support for the legislation and strongly urged passage,
noting that pesticides are highly toxic to fish and
wildlife.
3:23:49 PM
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, #24-LS0149\I.1,
Bullock, 3/14/05. (Copy on File). Representative Hawker
OBJECTED.
Mr. Pawlowski explained that Amendment #1 was intended to
define reasonable fee in Sections 8-10. The amendment
addresses concerns resulting from discussions with the
agricultural community regarding public notice. The
Department has indicated that they do not intent to take
chemicals "off the table" but rather cover the cost of the
program and not getting in the way of State commerce.
Representative Hawker WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted.
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2, #24-LS019\I.2,
Bullock, 3/14/05. (Copy on File). Representative Hawker
OBJECTED for purpose of discussion.
Mr. Pawlowski commented that Amendment #2 clarifies the
definition of a multi-family dwelling.
3:26:42 PM
Mr. Pawlowski said the intent is to move more toward broad
public places and that the amendment clarifies the
description of common areas such as public places around
apartment buildings.
Representative Hawker WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment
#2. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #2 was
adopted.
3:27:44 PM
Co-Chair Meyer commented on the importance of the bill and
noted that it would be held for further consideration of the
fiscal impact. He thought that those that profit from
chemicals sold statewide should pay. Co-Chair Meyer added
that there are public health concerns and that the public
has the right to know what chemicals are being used and sold
statewide. He pointed out that many people have severe
allergies to these chemicals.
Ms. Ryan explained that the pesticide program is a four-
person program, which has many statewide responsibilities.
Pesticides are currently permitted for air, water and land.
The process is extensive and that it is not a light matter
regulating pesticide use. The last issued permit took over
a year to conduct. Given the additional requirements of the
bill, the Division believes that three additional staff is
necessary to do that work. Ms. Ryan stressed that the bill
is positive for funding aspects as well as being an
important public health bill.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if there was a specialty chemical used
for agriculture, would the fee vary. Ms. Ryan advised that
the fee could be waived for chemicals not used that much or
that are new to the State and that have never been
distributed. She added that if a large percentage were
paying the fee, the fee could fluctuate.
Vice-Chair Stoltze stated that the bill would be held for
further consideration of the fiscal note.
HB 19 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|