04/16/1993 01:00 PM House JUD

  HB 132:  EXTEND RESOURCE EXTRACTION PERMIT/LEASE                             
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 132, stated                    
  that the bill would allow for the extension of a resource                    
  extraction permit in cases in which the permit could not be                  
  exercised due to legal action enjoining the permitted                        
  activity and in which the final judgment was in the                          
  permittee's favor.  Also, he said, HB 132 would allow an                     
  automatic extension, upon application by the permit holder,                  
  for the time lost on the permit due to the legal action.                     
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that the House Resources                         
  Committee had made a couple of amendments which had                          
  questionable effects.  He called the members' attention to a                 
  memorandum from Jerry Luckhaupt of the Legislative Affairs                   
  Agency's Division of Legal Services which addressed the                      
  effect of one of the House Resources Committee's amendments.                 
  On page 2, line 24 of CSHB 132 (RES), he said, the                           
  definition of permits would result in negating the bill,                     
  because it made reference to an obsolete statute.                            
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that members had in their                     
  bill packets an amendment which would delete that reference,                 
  and instead use the Department of Natural Resources' (DNR's)                 
  broad definition of "permit."                                                
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER identified that particular amendment as                      
  AMENDMENT NO. 1.                                                             
                                                                               
  Number 332                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that AMENDMENT NO. 2 pertained to                  
  page 2, line 2 of CSHB 132 (RES), and deleted the phrase "a                  
  substantial extent," which the House Resources Committee had                 
  added.  Discussions with the Legislative Affairs Agency's                    
  Division of Legal Services attorneys and the DNR officials                   
  resulted in the recommendation that the phrase be deleted.                   
  He stated that the Alaska Miners' Association, the                           
  Department of Commerce and Economic Development, and the                     
  Usibelli Coal Mine had all endorsed HB 132.                                  
                                                                               
  Number 338                                                                   
                                                                               
  EVANS MCMILLION, representing the Alaska Environmental                       
  Lobby, testified in opposition to HB 132.  She said that the                 
  bill was overly broad and contained ambiguous language.  She                 
  noted that the bill did not give credence to unforeseen                      
  consequences which could lead to additional court cases.                     
  Additionally, she said, the bill assumed clear-cut                           
  litigation outcomes by the use of the term "successful" on                   
  page 2, lines 5-6.  She stated that courts often granted a                   
  plaintiff part, but not all, of what he or she wanted.                       
                                                                               
  MS. MCMILLION questioned who would decide if a permittee was                 
  in fact successful, and what criteria would be used to make                  
  that determination.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 358                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the section to which Ms.                          
  McMillion was referring went on to say, "and the suit is                     
  dismissed with prejudice or judgment is granted to the                       
  holder of the permits..."                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 364                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. MCMILLION replied that she was not an attorney, but                      
  noted that attorneys with whom she had spoken had informed                   
  her that the language was still troublesome.  She expressed                  
  her opinion that HB 132 did not take into account external                   
  factors that could change during the time of litigation,                     
  including changes in federal laws or scientific information.                 
                                                                               
  Number 393                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that a quorum was not present.                         
                                                                               
  Number 398                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Ms. Horetski to comment on the                     
  language on page 2, line 5 of the bill.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 405                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI mentioned that Civil Rule 82 provided that                      
  courts should estimate attorneys' fees and award them to the                 
  prevailing party in a lawsuit.  Many times, she said, it was                 
  difficult for a court to decide which party had prevailed.                   
  She commented that the bill's reference to a "successful"                    
  litigant made it a very high standard to meet.  She did not                  
  have any language prepared which would tighten that                          
  provision, but stated that the drafting attorneys might be                   
  able to come up with some appropriate language.                              
                                                                               
  Number 434                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee would prepare                      
  language pertaining to "successful" litigants and bring                      
  HB 132 back before the committee at a time uncertain.  He                    
  noted that the idea behind HB 132 was to prevent an existing                 
  situation in which suits designed solely to obstruct                         
  resource extraction could have the effect of requiring a                     
  permit holder to go through a time-consuming, expensive                      
  permit process more than once.  He said that HB 132 could                    
  bar specious litigation and he expressed his support for the                 
  bill for that reason.                                                        
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER thanked Representatives Kott and Nordlund                    
  for being present throughout the meeting.  He stated that,                   
  due to time constraints, HB 187, Interception of Private                     
  Communications, would not be heard that day.                                 
                                                                               
  ADJOURNMENT                                                                  
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.