Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/26/2002 01:53 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 356-GENERAL PERMIT FOR WATER/WASTE DISPOSAL CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 356 am, "An Act relating to the authority of the Department of Environmental Conservation to issue general and individual permits for waste disposal; and providing for an effective date." Number 2634 JOE BALASH, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Alaska State Legislature, presented SB 356 on behalf of the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor, which Senator Therriault chairs. Mr. Balash characterized SB 356 as a bill that establishes procedures for developing and issuing general permits in the Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC), Division of Air & Water Quality. He explained that a general permit is used to regulate a class of operation that is fairly standard and similar throughout (indisc.) achieved across the industry. He remarked: A very handy example ... is the washing down of a cement truck. If you own a cement truck, there's no way you're going to let the cement harden inside the container. It needs to be washed out on a daily basis. However, in order to wash that truck out, you don't want the dirty water ... to go into a stream or any other environmentally sensitive area, and so there would be some general considerations given to how that is done. A general permit would be issued by the department that would say anybody washing out their cement truck would have to avoid doing it next to a stream. That's a fairly simplistic example but useful for illustration purposes. MR. BALASH turned attention to page 2, line 26, and he said the word "cumulatively" replaced the original proposed language. He explained that the change was made at the request of the Alaska Conservation Voters (ACV), but was done with a little bit of concern because the word "cumulative" is a somewhat "loaded" term in the regulatory community. He said in connection with NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act of 1969], there is a cumulative impact analysis statement in which a given action calls for the determination of the cumulative impacts. He said that's not at all what this [language] is intended to imply, and in no way is the sponsor asking that a cumulative impact analysis be done. MR. BALASH said the word is only speaking to discharges, including discharges that are currently ongoing, in addition to the discharges proposed to be added by this general permit. He said Senator Therriault asked him to inform the committee of a number of amendments that have come to light in the last 48 hours, including one to be brought [forward] by the Army. Mr. Balash said while Senator Therriault is not unsympathetic to the concerns of the Army or its interests, the balance in this bill has been struck by a working group of industry, the regulating community, and the regulating bodies in state government. The balance is a fine one, he said, and it is preferred that it not be upset by any amendments at this time. Number 2876 COLONEL FRED LEHMAN, U.S. Army Alaska Garrison Commander, testified. Colonel Lehman reported that on 04/12/02 a group of national and local environmental organizations sued the U.S. Army and the U.S. Department of Defense in an attempt to close down Fort Richardson's only artillery training range in the Eagle River Flats. The Eagle River Flats, he explained, is the only location south of the Alaska Range where soldiers conduct live-fire heavy-artillery training, and that the military has used this range as an artillery range for the last 50 years. Colonel Lehman said proper training is essential to the success of military operation and is a matter of troop readiness. He remarked about the young men and women who risk their lives to uphold the values that [U.S. citizens] so strongly cherish and how before sending soldiers into life-and-death situations [the military has] a legal and moral obligation to provide them with full training required to achieve the military's objectives and also minimize the risk of [harm] to themselves and innocent civilians. COLONEL LEHMAN talked about having half a dozen soldiers in Afghanistan in harm's way and how they trained on those ranges at Fort Richardson in regular training exercises that included the use of live ammunition, artillery explosives, high-caliber weaponry, et cetera. He said it also means that large land areas such as Eagle River Flats must remain available for such exercises and that the Army's ability to continue live-fire training is critical to Fort Richardson's national defense mission. Colonel Lehman explained that because [Fort Richardson] is the only location south of the Alaska Range where soldiers conduct live-fire training, its reason for existence is to train soldiers for wartime operations. He said Fort Richardson's future is at risk and that the Army is engaging a new round of BRAC [Base Realignment and Closure] closures starting in 2005. TAPE 02-39, SIDE B Number 2995 COLONEL LEHMAN explained that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that the federal courts should force the Army to close the Eagle River Flats range because the Army has not obtained a DEC solid waste disposal permit under AS 46.03.100 for the firing of artillery munitions on the Eagle River Flats. He explained that DEC has never required a permit under AS 46.03.100 for munitions fired on active military ranges. He said the artillery that the Army is firing are explosive rounds, not solid waste. He suggested this has been done in the U.S. for about 240 years. and he talked about activities that meet AS 46.03.100 permit requirements, such as wastewater discharge or the construction of solid waste landfills. COLONEL LEHMAN suggested that the plaintiff's attempt to force DEC to regulate live-fire military training activities on active military ranges sets an unacceptable precedent. If the effort succeeds, he said, DEC may well be pressured into attempting to regulate other critical aspects of training exercises, such as the type of munitions fired, firing locations, firing times, and other parameters. He suggested that DEC is not equipped to do so and that the Army has no reason to believe that DEC wishes to assume this role. It's a bad idea all around, he commented. He noted that this bill deals with DEC's authority to issue disposal permits under AS 46.03.100 and that the bill already contains a list of exceptions. Number 2919 COLONEL LEHMAN brought attention to a written amendment that read [original punctuation provided]: SB 356 am shall be amended to add a new section that reads as follows: Sec._. AS 46.03.100(d) is amended to read: (d) This section does not apply to (1) disposals subject to regulation under AS 31.05.030(e)(2);[OR] (2) injection projects permitted under AS 31.05.030(h)[.]; or (3) discharges resulting from the firing or other use of munitions in training activities conducted on active ranges operated by the United States Department of Defense or a United States military agency. COLONEL LEHMAN explained that the Army is requesting the legislature to adopt a short, simple amendment that would add solid waste disposal activities resulting from the firing of munitions in training activities conducted on active military ranges to the list of activities exempted from this permit requirement. He said by enacting a straightforward amendment, the legislature will help ensure that the Army Alaska remains able to properly train those people in the armed forces and that Fort Richardson retains an important role in the nation's defense strategy. Number 2879 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said he was surprised to learn that Army bases have to comply with state regulations. He asked if that is the case throughout the country. COLONEL LEHMAN said no; this is the first lawsuit of this type. He explained that on [04/25/02] the Army filed a Clean Water Act permit with the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency]. He reported that he had been in consultation with the EPA region's head environment chief for the past six months, and he indicated that the EPA is uncertain about both it and the state's involvement in the issue. However, he said, this issue has to be addressed because a lawsuit has been filed against the military. Number 2836 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether permits are normally required under these kinds of circumstances or if this is an unusual situation. She asked for more information on the court case. Number 2817 JOHN McDONAGH, Environmental Counsel, U.S. Army Alaska, testified. Mr. McDonagh explained that the lawsuit against the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in his official capacity was filed in the U.S. District Court, District of Alaska, on April 12, 2002. He said the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT), Cook Inlet Keeper; the Chickaloon Village Traditional Council; two individual plaintiffs, Janet Daniels and Richard Martin; and the Military Toxics Project, which is a national environmental group that has filed other lawsuits against the military's use of ranges at other places throughout the country. He explained that the lawsuit has three separate primary claims: The first deals with the Army's alleged failure to have a Clean Water Act permit. The second deals with the failure to have a AS 46.03.100 solid waste disposal permit for the firing of munitions into the Eagle River Flats. The third is a claim under CERCLA [Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act], commonly known as Superfund, alleging that the Army needs to have a remedial investigation or feasibility study (RI/FS) done for Fort Richardson on the Eagle River Flats. MR. McDONAGH said this is very interesting because a CERCLA RI/FS was conducted on Eagle River Flats and found only one contaminant of concern - white phosphorus, which affects waterfowl. That was addressed through a record of decision signed by the EPA and DEC, and that remedy for white phosphorus was implemented beginning a couple of years ago, he explained. Mr. McDonagh reported that the record on decision also concluded that no other contaminants of concern exist with respect to Eagle River Flats. He said that's not the Army's conclusion; that's EPA and DEC's conclusion as set forth in CERCLA. Needless to say, the Army is very concerned about the ability to continue to train for the reasons that Colonel Lehman stated, he said. Mr. McDonagh said this is one of the highest profile lawsuits that the Army has, and that the military has nationwide implications on an issue it refers to as encroachment. He explained that this is a major issue that impacts the ability to train; impacts the future viability of Fort Richardson as a training facility; it does potentially impact training facilities at Fort Greely and Fort Wainwright, which is why the Army is asking for the legislature's help. Number 2669 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. McDonagh if the Army had any type of restraining order in place or if training is allowed to continue until the lawsuit is decided. MR. McDONAGH, in response, explained that the complaint, as filed, requests an injunctive relief prohibiting the Army from continuing to conduct the activities at the Eagle River Flats. However, he said, there has been no preliminary injunction motion filed, so currently there is no injunction in place. Mr. McDonagh clarified that because of concerns over wildlife and the environment, the Army never fires at the Eagle River Flats over the summer months, so there would be no need to seek an injunction at the present period of time. COLONEL LEHMAN said correct; the Army's SOPs [standard operating procedures] require that there must be six inches of ice before firing commences. Number 2617 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how long the arsenal had been used in that area. MR. McDONAGH, in response, said the Army has used the Eagle River Flats since the 1940s and it was a major range in World War II; it was also used throughout the Korean War and right up to the present. Mr. McDonagh said the Army discovered white phosphorus in the early 1980s, and when it was discovered to be a problem, the Army ceased using it in 1990, but has continued to use artillery at the range for practice. CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if the Army has ever applied for a solid waste permit. MR. McDONAGH, in response, said no, the position taken by [DEC] is that it has never requested the Army to [apply for a permit], and the Army's position has always been that this is not solid waste and is not subject to the permitting requirement. He said he was informed that consistent with past practice, DEC has no desire to regulate in this area and the Army has no desire to have DEC regulate in this area. Mr. McDonagh remarked, "So, all we're asking for is the status quo (indisc.)." The only reason this is an issue before this committee is not because of anything anyone in the Army is doing differently or anything that the agency is doing differently; it is because it has been raised as a claim by the plaintiffs in this lawsuit in an attempt to shut [the Army's use of the Eagle River Flats for training] down, he said. Number 2544 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS remarked, "I think of World War II and when the Japanese had taken Attu and Kiska and we attacked them to take them back, if these people had been around, you would have been required to have ... permission before you could have launched the attack; ... the whole thing is just bizarre." He said it seems to him that Alaska's currently at the front on this issue, and he suggested that there are a lot more bases around the United States that use a lot more artillery than is used in Alaska. He speculated that there must be a lot more sites that are in worse condition than Alaska. COLONEL LEHMAN, in response, said this will be a test case. MR. McDONAGH said correct; this is an issue around the country in many different ways. He mentioned a briefing he had attended in the previous week in which some Marines from Camp Pendleton explained what it's like to have 23 miles of beach and only be able to use about a half mile of that beach. He said the Marines can't even do a beach-to-beach diversion anymore and that when they do hit the beach, instead of digging foxholes, they have to lay out tape to mark where the foxhole would be because they're not allowed to dig on that beach; then they go back to the barracks and practice digging. He said if the issue is called encroachment, it's one of the largest issues that the U.S. military has facing it now. Mr. McDonagh remarked, "It's come home to rest here in our little case in our military base here in Alaska, and that's why we're here." Number 2467 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked what the problem is with white phosphorus. COLONEL LEHMAN, in response, said it is used for a burning and smoke agent and requires air for it to oxidize and go off. If it stays under the water, it will stay in pellet form, but it will oxidize and kill waterfowl if ingested. He explained that the Army recognized the issue and subsequently spent millions of dollars remediating it in a very public way such as inviting groups out and asking for participation for quarterly restoration advisory boards, et cetera. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether local shooting ranges are required to obtain permits to be able to use munitions for shooting. MR. McDONAGH said to his knowledge, solid waste disposal permits are not required in Alaska for any other municipal ranges. COLONEL LEHMAN clarified that this [lawsuit] has a community impact that affects others that use or train on this range, including: the U.S. National Guard, the Alaska State Troopers, the Anchorage Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and private citizens. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said the court case should decide this issue, and she talked about the possibility of an injunction. She asked how onerous it is to go through a DEC permitting process to get a permit. MR. McDONAGH said the Army may be facing an injunction, but is not facing one at this particular moment in time. He said the notion that AS 46.03.100 would be expanded to cover these activities and therefore potentially subject very detailed military issues to the purview of an agency that admittedly has no background or interest in this particular area is both dangerous and unwise, in the Army's view. COLONEL LEHMAN said when the military starts unexpected training with high artillery ammunition, there is a reason for it, and [the military] doesn't normally want to disclose why it's being done, who is being trained, or what the purposes are. Number 2298 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked whether it would be in the purview of Congress to exempt national defense exercises from state management and control. COLONEL LEHMAN said the issue is currently being addressed at the executive level. He said this is a three-part [issue], and one part is at the state level. MR. McDONAGH said the Army is here [before the legislature] because it has a specific state issue before it and a specific lawsuit brought against a facility within the state. He said this broader issue of encroachment is receiving very significant attention at the national level. Unfortunately, he said, none of that attention will come in time to help the Army at the Eagle River Flats. Number 2254 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that it is ironic that this activity has been done for over 60 years and it seems incredible that millions of dollars are being spent on national defense, but there is a concern that maybe our troops shouldn't be training to utilize arsenal. He said it doesn't make sense to him. Number 2186 SUSAN SCHRADER, Alaska Conservation Voters (ACV), testified. Ms. Schrader said ACV does appreciate and agree with DEC that there are certain activities that are very appropriately managed with a general permit, and ACV does not have a problem with most of the general permits that the department currently has. She said ACV's understanding is that the bill will put some clarifying language into statute that addresses DEC's authority to issue general permits. She expressed concern that the bill is ambiguous and overly broad, and because of that, is open to abuse. MS. SCHRADER said this bill goes far beyond what the department needs to address for the washing out of cement trucks or high school carwashes, which are not activities that are necessarily of concern. She suggested having a bill that puts some sidebars, structure, and limits on what can be covered by a general permit. MS. SCHRADER indicated that ACV is opposed to the bill because of previously expressed concerns. Ms. Schrader said she was just made aware of the military situation and is not prepared to speak on the lawsuit, but that it is her observation that [Colonel Lehman and Mr. McDonagh] are asking the legislature to try this case right now in the form of this amendment and that she thought that is totally unfair and truly the antithesis of the government process. Ms. Schrader suggested that perhaps members of the committee would like the opportunity to hear from those other parties involved in this litigation and the reasons this litigation was brought forward and some of the efforts that the environmental groups have gone through to work with the military to address the issues before they were forced to bring litigation forward. She remarked, "I truly think it is inappropriate for the committee to sit here as the judge of the merits of litigation that I doubt any of us have had a chance to look at ...." CO-CHAIR MASEK reminded Ms. Schrader that the committee is deliberating a bill, not acting as judges. MS. SCHRADER suggested it is much more appropriate to address the concerns through litigation and let the legal process determine the merits of the plaintiff's case. She said in 1994, Fort Richardson was listed as a Superfund site and that because of military activities, there are 27,000 toxic "hot spots" around the country. Ms. Schrader noted the Chickaloon tribe as having concerns for their health and well-being, and she suggested she herself would be concerned if she owned property near one of these sites. She suggested the committee take a look at the sincere concerns of folks who don't want their ground water contaminated and don't want to have to depend on living in an area that has potentially been polluted by military activities. Number 1915 MS. SCHRADER mentioned her sincere concerns about what has gone on in the country and around the world and about military issues, but she suggested that giving the military an exemption from all environmental laws that are here to protect public health is not in anybody's best interest. She said she finds it a little ironic that the military is doing these exercises to train its personnel to protect the resources and at the same time, through its very activities - the request through federal legislation and this amendment - [wishes to] be exempted from those very laws that protect the water quality. CO-CHAIR SCALZI talked about his experience at the local shooting range and he said he wondered why the U.S. military is targeted as the environmental "test spot" of such activity when it is occurring in local communities throughout the U.S. He suggested if the environmental community had real concerns about pollutants, the issue would initially be addressed at a local level. Number 1780 MS. SCHRADER brought attention to the fact that there are hundreds of environmental groups, from local groups to international groups, that do their work at all levels, and she said she cannot speak to the plaintiffs in this case or whether they have worked on other local issues. Ms. Schrader noted that she personally had the experience of working on an issue surrounding the local gun range at Montana Creek, and she suggested the potential contamination of that soil and ground water with lead and other heavy metals from years of use is quite high. She also mentioned that DEC had indicated it would be ideal to regulate those sites "in the perfect world." She suggested that in that scenario, DEC would have the ability to regulate those sites and work to ensure that those toxic areas are cleaned up. Ms. Schrader suggested housing developments are encroaching on the gun range at Montana Creek and that the ground water may be contaminated. CO-CHAIR SCALZI suggested that large targets such as the military or factory trawlers are "picked on," rather than local targets, and have the potential to impact national security or have large economic impacts to Alaska. He said he was amazed at what the Cook Inlet Keeper was involved in with regard to the lawsuit. He spoke to Ms. Schrader's suggestion that the Army is asking the legislature to try the case, and he asked why the environmental community didn't come to the legislature first to get help. Going right to the courts is the "first line of attack" rather than settling the [issue] through local legislation, he suggested. He asked Ms. Schrader if she thought that would have been a better method rather than going right to the military and filing a lawsuit. Number 1617 MS. SCHRADER said it is her understanding that the groups involved in [the lawsuit] have worked with the military for several years to try to cooperatively come to some alternative arrangements. CO-CHAIR SCALZI pointed out that this is the first that the legislature has heard of this issue. MS. SCHRADER noted that she had brought many environmental issues and concerns forward to the legislature over the years, and that it is a very frustrating proposition. She mentioned the six amendments that had she brought forward to the sponsor of this bill with the intention of helping to clarify the bill, and the fact that every one of those amendments had been turned down. She suggested that ACV has tried in sincere honesty to work through the legislative process and that this is not an "easy game" for an environmentalist to play with the legislature. She maintained that there are two sides to every story that and only one side of the story is being heard. Number 1517 TOM CHAPPLE, Director, Division of Air and Water Quality, Department of Environmental Conservation, testified. Mr. Chapple said for about the last three and a half years, DEC has been working to rebuild its wastewater permitting program and had done so after assembling a stakeholder group composed of the resource development community, local government, environmental organizations, citizens' organizations such as the RCA, and federal and other state agencies. He said that work resulted in 10 basic recommendations from the group and that this bill is an outgrowth of a recommendation that the department should use more general permits in overseeing certain activities and in mitigating the impacts of discharges. MR. CHAPPLE said the bill reflects a delicate balance among the varied groups and that not all parties agreed that general permits should be aggressively pursued. There was some reluctance, but a majority of the members of the work group did agree, he noted. He explained that it is the department's belief that general permits are useful and appropriate when the risk to the environment is low or when there is a common treatment practice that will mitigate that risk. It is important when general permits are developed, he explained, that the public has an opportunity to comment on the development of that [permit], as well as to know what activities are permitted under a general permit; a general permit could apply to a number of operations, so knowing where those operations are is important. Mr. Chapple noted that this bill accomplishes those two primary objectives for the department. He said the department supports the bill and believes it is a positive bill that it would like to see move forward. Number 1377 MR. CHAPPLE called attention to the subject of the Eagle River Flats, and he said the department has never requested that a permit be required for solid waste or wastewater discharge and has no intention or desire to impede the training activities. Obviously, he said, that's an important function. He noted that the bill is the result of an ongoing lawsuit and, paraphrasing from AS 46.03.900, he explained that the definition of solid waste basically means all unwanted, abandoned, or discarded material. He said in regard to rifle ranges or munitions ranges, the department's position is that it is not abandoned waste until the site is no longer active. When the site is no longer active and is intended to be closed, it could be handled as solid waste if that's appropriate, he said. If there is contamination of the ground water or [other] water, then it would be handled as a contaminated site cleanup. He said the department has never implemented [such permitting] or suggested that a permit would be required. It is the department's belief that the operative language the department has used, which is part of the state's precedent for making those decisions, would be beneficial to the court when this case is heard, as well as the definition that the department is using, he explained. MR. CHAPPLE said the department doesn't view that a change in the law is necessary to accomplish what the Army might be looking for and that the court will hear how the state has made decisions in the past and what it rests [its decisions on]. He suggested to the committee that the issue being heard is really a different issue than the substance of the bill that is before them, even though the title change would allow this change. Mr. Chapple said the bill is structured to talk about general permits and has been brought together by a number of people of very diverse interests to strike a balance. He said if the bill is amended to include the Eagle River Flats issue, it will bring with it the other parties that are a part of that lawsuit and the anxiety and the issues associated with that suit. Mr. Chapple said the department is concerned and would prefer that the bill stay simple and be completed the way it is. Number 1171 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether an environmental review would be required if a new rifle range were being established. MR. CHAPPLE noted that he doesn't manage the solid waste program, and he said he believes the answer is no, the department does not permit and would not require a permit for any rifle range, but local zoning requirements might come into play. Number 1098 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if the Army is currently required to live by federal and environmental laws. MR. CHAPPLE said he had been doing environmental work for over 20 years and had seen a change in the laws when sovereign immunity was asserted by the U.S. Department of Defense a number of years ago and exempted from environmental laws. Those laws have changed over the last 15 years, and the Department of Defense is generally obligated to meet state and national environmental laws. He said there is currently a discussion on a national scale about the issue of sovereign immunity and whether certain actions should be exempted. In fact, he said, the commissioner of DEC is currently at a meeting with the commissioners of all environmental agencies of the state, and some of the discussion is focusing on the various aspects of the sovereign immunity tasks, what would be exempted, and certain proposals that are out. Mr. Chapple said this issue has come forth as an adjustment in state law, but is that adjustment going to be needed in every other state law? Mr. Chapple suggested that the issue needs to be addressed on a national scale and that national environmental laws need to be looked at to try to strike the right balance. Number 0945 MATT GILL, Staff to Representative Eldon Mulder, Alaska State Legislature, testified. Mr. Gill said Representative Mulder currently represents Fort Richardson Army base and supports any amendments that would clarify the Army's position regarding the use of the Eagle River Flats artillery training range. Number 0875 CO-CHAIR MASEK, upon determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony. MR. BALASH said he didn't think the sponsor's position would change and that there are a number of issues surrounding the lawsuit. He indicated one of the main issues is whether this is the only place in statute that needs to be changed, and he said in the idea of good government and evenhandedness, Ms. Schrader pointed out that there are a number of other individuals that would be more than happy to provide testimony and information on this issue if they were given the opportunity. Mr. Balash said Senator Therriault has expressed to him that he would be happy to support the introduction and passage of a separate piece of legislation that would allow this issue to be addressed by the legislature, would afford the public an opportunity to look at the issue comprehensively, and also would allow the department to perhaps take a more complete look at the position of the state and where these types of issues should be addressed in state statute. Number 0700 COLONEL LEHMAN said he thought it was a paramount issue. He talked about the BRAC closures and the need for the artillery range to train. He said the Army is poised to put a brand new formation called a IBCT [Interim Brigade Combat Team] that is going to bring over $1 billion in new construction into the state. He said he didn't think the Army is poised to invest that much money if it will not be allowed to train here and that it will probably move that element to somewhere else. COLONEL LEHMAN said it would help the [Army's] cause to get a piece of legislation pushed through. He said he was uncertain about the success of the proposed amendment, but he wanted to ensure that the legislature had the opportunity to express what it would like the military's function and performance to be in the state of Alaska. He remarked, "If the lawsuit says we file, we will file; it just puts more burdens on the military to perform their mission." He said he can understand the position of Senator Therriault and his staff. COLONEL LEHMAN said he never thought it was a requirement to have special permits to fire normally assigned weapons that Congress bought the military to train and use to defend this land or that the [Army] would have to ask to fire those weapons on lands that were set aside for that purpose. He said he is willing to work with the legislature and the sponsor of the bill, and he closed by saying that the Army just wanted the opportunity for the legislature to hear its story. MR. McDONAGH said the Army is not asking the legislature to try the case; it is asking the legislature to confirm the present, past, and intended future practices of DEC so as not to engage itself in regulating military training exercises and allowing those exercises to be precluded at a facility that's essential for training its soldiers. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern about time constraints that would hinder passage of new legislation, and the urgency of the military to address this issue. He mentioned DEC's disinterest in permitting rifle ranges and the artillery that the military uses for training, and the fact that [the artillery] explode and don't leave the same residue found at a rifle range. He talked about including the proposed amendment so that the military can continue training. He indicated he doesn't foresee it upsetting the delicate balance of the bill. The committee took an at-ease from 3:25 p.m. to 3:28 p.m. Number 0361 CO-CHAIR MASEK noted that the committee would hold SB 356 am for further review and the opportunity to work with the sponsor to try to create a workable amendment. Number 0268 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS mentioned other types of military artillery use and questioned whether it is related and should also be looked at. CO-CHAIR MASEK suggested that the subject be discussed with the bill's sponsor and the drafter of the proposed amendment. [SB 356 am was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|