Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/13/2002 09:10 AM House RLS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 371-WASTE PERMIT & COASTAL ZONE EXEMPTIONS CHAIR KOTT announced that the next order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 371(RES) am, "An Act exempting the use of munitions in certain areas from a waste disposal permit requirement of the Department of Environmental Conservation; relating to general or nationwide permits under the Alaska coastal management program and to authorizations and permits issued by the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission; and providing for an effective date." Number 0082 SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, Alaska State Legislature, testified as the sponsor of CSSB 371(RES) am. He informed the committee that there were discussions between [the interested parties], however, no agreement was reached on the amendments. Number 0124 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew Amendment 1 [which was moved at the May 12, 2002, hearing]. He urged the parties to get together. "It's an unfortunate practice when litigants wind up in front of the legislature. We're not the proper forum to resolve these disputes. Never, in my experience, has it led to any kind of finality," he related. He expressed hope that there would be a conclusion that would accommodate the interests of everyone. SENATOR THERRIAULT noted that he has another bill that addresses the permitting process and attempts to review it in a global sense. That legislation was introduced late in the session and thus he wasn't able to work with all the different parties. Therefore, he said that he has contemplated using the Joint Committee on Legislative Budget & Audit as a possible funding source to bring an arbiter to work on permits in a global fashion with the interested parties. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ related his belief that the aforementioned idea is a good approach. He thanked Senator Therriault for allowing his staff to work on this. Number 0298 JIM EASON, Lobbyist, Forest Oil Corporation, noted that he meet with Representative Kerttula on the pending amendments to CSSB 371(RES) am, and later with the counsel for the plaintiff in the case precipitating the Alaska Supreme Court decision as well as the Cook Inlet Keepers representative. After an in-depth discussion of the amendments and the intent of the parties, it was determined that two of the amendments would remove provisions of the bill dealing with the range exemption that has support in both bodies. In Mr. Eason's view, the other three amendments would increase the litigation risk rather than diminish it. Therefore, [he felt that the discussion] confirms that it is important for this legislation to pass in order to confirm that the process used by agencies throughout every administration that has administered the coastal zone program is the proper one. Number 0434 PAT GALVIN, Director, Division of Governmental Coordination, Office of the Governor, noted that he took part in the discussions yesterday. He recalled that using the regulatory process to address this issue as well as including the Supreme Court's decision seemed to satisfy most interests. Mr. Galvin said, "We believe that we have the support of both parties in this situation, with regard to the legislation, to address that in the regulations and we intend to do that." Number 0529 BOB SHAVELSON, Executive Director, Cook Inlet Keeper, related that yesterday's meeting was helpful because it was the first time for the parties to come together. Clearly, there are some philosophical riffs between the parties. Mr. Shavelson specified, "The issue that we have is that we're trying to take a broad brush, a sweeping look at the implications of site- specific impacts." This legislation not only addresses the general permits [related] to discharges in Cook Inlet but every general permit that has been issued since 1995. This legislation addresses a variety of industries that can have significant localized effects. Therefore, Mr. Shavelson said that [Cook Inlet Keeper] doesn't believe that a generalized review is sufficient if the desire is to protect those who rely on the resource. Mr. Shavelson related his sense that [Cook Inlet Keeper] didn't hold many cards and that industry was merely going through the process to report back that it had met. He noted the considerable amount of influence the lobbyists have over the legislature, which is of concern with regard to the public's lack of ability to impact legislation. However, Mr. Shavelson acknowledged that Forest Oil Corporation has done some good things. For instance, reinjection of their production wastes is important and will be held up as the standard for future production activities in Cook Inlet. He turned to the exploratory side of the issue and noted that [Cook Inlet Keeper] wanted to see zero discharges for everything in Cook Inlet. He related his belief that the technology to do so is available as was illustrated when zero discharges were implemented on the fifth well. Again, that should be the standard for oil and gas development in Cook Inlet. MR. SHAVELSON returned to this legislation and its sweeping implications. He reiterated that this legislation has been rushed through. With regard to the exemption for the Eagle River Flats bombing range, he viewed it as a fishing issue in which toxics are being discharged into a rich estuarine system. Furthermore, he saw the state as divesting itself from the obligation and duty it has to oversee the public resources that are owned by everyone in the state. Mr. Shavelson said, "Again, the linkage of these two things, I think, is an unholy alliance. I think it's bad public policy, ... bad process. I would hope that it would not move, but I'm afraid that that is not the case." MR. SHAVELSON turned to Mr. Eason's comment that this is the way things have always been done. Continuing the status quo would be fine if this were a static system. However, things have changed and the situation now is one in which more and more general permits are coming out. The court simply interpreted the law as it was written. In conclusion, Mr. Shavelson echoed Mr. Galvin's remarks with regard to the regulatory process being used to resolve this issue without this legislation. He pointed out that there is a consistency review draft regulation that has been moving through the process with a considerable amount of public debate from industry and citizen groups. The aforementioned is the proper forum in which to address this complex issue, he said. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA related her thanks to the committee for the latitude it has allowed on this matter. Number 0925 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that a substantial part of the justification for taking this action was furnished by Mr. Shavelson's testimony. That is, if this were a sweeping change in the regulatory scheme, he said he would suggest moving with much contemplation and in-depth analysis. However, this [legislation] allows an accepted procedure to be restated so that it can continue. If this practice should be revisited, then it should be done with the necessary contemplation to access the ramifications of any changes to all the resource development projects in the state. Number 1004 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to report CSSB 371(RES) am out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSSB 371(RES) am was reported from the House Rules Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|