Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/21/2000 01:10 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 371 - REPORTS FROM MARINE PASSENGER VESSELS CHAIRMAN HALCRO announced the first and only order of business as House Bill 371, "An Act relating to certain passenger vessels transacting business in the state or operating in the marine waters of the state." [Not yet adopted was a proposed committee substitute (CS), version 1-LS1327\H, Lauterbach, 3/17/00.] Number 0049 REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to testify as sponsor of the bill. She began by extending her thanks to those who have worked on the bill and to those who are here to testify today. She also thanked her staff - Karen Greeney and Gretchen Keiser - for their work on the bill. Number 0112 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that she'd drafted the bill as the result of a meeting in Juneau last December [1999], at which time the cruise ship industry indicated there weren't many problems with their waste management practices. She said: The thing that really astonished me after sitting through the meeting was the lack of information. The lack of actual data about what was being discharged into the air and into the water. There was also a true disconnect between what I know from living in Juneau and between ... what I was hearing at the meeting. I can sit in my cousin's backyard on 6th Street [in Juneau] on a windless, sunny day and smell fumes and see the discharge. Number 0192 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA continued. This is a "right to know" bill. It requires cruise ship companies to register with the state, as most other businesses do in the state. And it requires cruise ship companies to monitor, record and report pollutants, as many other industries do in the state. She cited the seafood processing industries, the oil industries and the mining industries as examples. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA continued. Why have this piece of legislation? In 1999, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, about 550 cruise ships visited the state which brought about 600,000 people. She recognizes that the industry is an economic benefit, for she grew up in Juneau part time and knows the good that the industry has done for the town. At the same time, however, the industry has brought in a lot of waste. She cited Holland American and Royal Caribbean as examples. She also noted that six cruise ship companies have recently been cited for violating air admission standards. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA continued. The communities in coastal Alaska have a right to know what is being discharged and how that discharge is being handled. This legislation, she said, is a true reporting bill; it doesn't affect a ship's actual operations. She said: Frankly, if they're doing most of what they say they're doing, there really shouldn't be too much impact all the way around. But until this step is taken, with the lack of knowledge, I think, we'll continue to have problems between the communities and the cruise ships. A lot of the cruise industries have spoken to me and have shown a lot of good faith in coming forward and trying to work with DEC [Department of Environmental Conservation], who's definitely trying. But, at this point in our communities, we've just upped the bottom wanting to know what's happening to us. Number 0404 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for HB 371, version 1-LS1327\H, Lauterbach, 3/17/00. There being no objection, Version H was before the committee. CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Representative Kerttula to explain the changes in Version H. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that the proposed CS changes the size of the vessels to "300 gross registered tons or greater" in order to be consistent with federal law, and because it tends to be the natural breaking point in federal regulations. She further noted that minor changes were made throughout the proposed committee substitute in response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, the "Intertanko" decision, which broadly preempts state laws. Changes were made to the proposed committee substitute so that the industry doesn't have to retro-fit or change the design of their vessels. The proposed committee substitute also ties in a penalty provision that DEC already has in statute for falsifying a report or registration. The proposed CS also changes the language from "shall" to "may" on page 2, line 30, to "steer clear" of any preemption problems. It also changes the language on page 3, line 14, to make it easier for the industry to make a report. Last, it clarifies the language on page 5, lines 16-19, to clear up the $50-a-day noncompliance penalty. Number 0596 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Kerttula whether cruise ships have to have a business license. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA answered that cruise ships do not have the same reporting requirements, which is the reason for the bill, but she's not sure about licensing. [Robert Reges [Cruise Control Inc.] indicated from the audience that cruise ships do not have to be licensed by the City & Borough of Juneau like other businesses. Randy Ray [U.S. Cruise Ship Association] indicated from the audience that cruise ships carrying a U.S. flag are licensed by the state. He cannot speak to cruise ships carrying a foreign flag, however.] Number 0662 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Kerttula whether she has a list of all the regulations that impact the cruise ship industry at the present time. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to a table prepared by her staff, which outlines the monitoring requirements, the recordkeeping requirements, and the reporting requirements for a number of different pollutants. The table illustrates the inconsistencies and holes, which is why the bill simply asks for a report. Number 0759 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Kerttula whether she is saying all the pollutants listed in the table should be required. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied that the bill calls for cruise ships to monitor pollutants being discharged. She reiterated that other industries monitor and report discharges. This legislation would bring the cruise ship industry on a par with other industries. Number 0804 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Kerttula whether everything is monitored for those industries or whether there is spot-monitoring. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied she's not sure; she would get back to him with information. In terms of discharges, she said, those industries have to monitor themselves quite heavily. Number 0819 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Kerttula for a more complete list of regulations. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA indicated that she would get that to him as soon as she receives more information from the Department of Environmental Conservation and the U.S. Coast Guard. Number 0865 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Kerttula whether the U.S. Coast Guard has regulations pertaining to onshore and offshore limitations for the discharge of waste. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA deferred the question to a representative of the U.S. Coast Guard. She noted, however, that there have been problems with the "doughnut holes" in Southeast Alaska, which are holes within the Inside Passage that are more than three miles from the mainland and any island that have to deal with both state and federal jurisdictions. International treaties play a part as well, which is why this legislation tries to avoid any preemption issues. Number 0924 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Kerttula whether the doughnut holes are addressed in the legislation. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied, "No." She didn't want to take on that issue, she said, but the cruise ship industry has agreed to comply with the law within the holes. Number 0960 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Kerttula whether the boat harbors in Juneau have facilities for those who live on their boats. What does a person do with his/her waste? REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA deferred the question to a representative of the City & Borough of Juneau. She noted that there are some treatment requirements for boats that have a toilet, but there are different requirements for boats that do not have a toilet. Number 1010 RON KREIZENBECK, Director, Office of Enforcement and Compliance, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, testified via off-net from Seattle. He told members he has been working with the Department of Environmental Conservation, the U.S. Coast Guard, the cruise ship industry and the communities of Southeast Alaska as a member of a steering committee that is dealing with these issues. He thinks that the proposed committee substitute gets at the crux of the issue, for information about what is going on has not been forthcoming. This legislation is a step in the right direction. Number 1037 GERSHON COHEN testified via teleconference from an off-net location. He read the following into the record: My name is Gershon Cohen, and I have lived in Southeast Alaska for nearly 20 years. I have a Master's Degree in molecular biology, and a Ph.D. in environmental policy. I'm a national project director on water quality issues for the Earth Island Institute. Today's cruise ships are floating cities transporting more than 5,000 passengers and crew. A typical ship generates, on every one-week voyage, approximately: - 210,000 gallons of raw and treated sewage; - 1,000,000 gallons of graywater containing solvents, detergents, and pesticides; - 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water; - 110 gallons of photo chemicals; - 5 gallons of dry-cleaning waste; - 10 gallons of used paints; and - 5 gallons of expired chemicals. That's a one-week voyage for a ship that's traveling to Southeast Alaska. Despite the industry's environmental record, which unfortunately at this point would have to be considered abysmal, no one will be monitoring discharges from the ships this summer. HB 371 is an effort to close this information gap. As Representative Kerttula said a few minutes ago, the bill will accomplish three desperately needed objectives: 1) Establish a "responsible party" for each ship at the beginning of every calendar year; 2) Require that one a month ships will voluntarily determine and report the quantity, composition, and discharge location for their waste streams and record visible air emissions while in port; and 3) Require an accounting of all hazardous and solid wastes off loaded for transport to a licensed treatment facility. I think there are two fundamental issues here that must be recognized: 1) The pubic has a right and a need to know what is being released from the ships. We have no idea if the legal wastes being released are a problem or not - or whether some ships perform better than others; and 2) The bill would really just level the playing field with other discharging industry. Again, as Kerttula mentioned earlier, the oil, timber, mining and seafood processing industries all submit monthly monitoring reports that cover their waste stream discharges. This bill is not intended to, nor will it chase the cruise ships away. It simply recognizes that both the industry and the public have needs. The industry needs Alaska as a destination, and Alaskans need clean air and clean water, as well as an active economy. Fortunately, these needs are not incompatible. However, the people of this state need, and have a right, to know what is in the multi-million gallon waste streams being released within short distances of our towns and fishing grounds. And, with all due respect, I hope the committee is aware of how many Alaskans from all over the state are in favor of gaining some control over these discharges. So, I hope you will find in favor of this legislation today. And I thank you very much for the opportunity to comment. Number 1240 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Cohen how he has determined that the cruise ship industry would not be impacted by these regulations. MR. COHEN replied, given their level of profits, they would not be impacted by these regulations. He cited that Royal Caribbean made about a million dollars a day in profits last year. Number 1292 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Cohen whether he doesn't believe that any industry should make a profit of a million dollars. MR. COHEN replied no, he doesn't have a problem with Royal Caribbean's profit margin; he just doesn't feel that the impact of this legislation would be significant to its ability to conduct business in the state. Number 1329 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Cohen: How far does a ship have to be offshore to dump sewage waste? MR. COHEN deferred the question to a representative of the U.S. Coast Guard. It's his understanding that treated sewage can be discharged anywhere, he said, and that raw sewage has to be discharged at a point more than three miles from shore. He pointed out that graywater is a great concern to those living in Southeast Alaska because it can be discharged anywhere, and graywater contains many solvents and detergents. It's a problem in Haines because the ships dock in front of the town and in front of the beach where the children swim; at this point, it is not know what exactly is being discharged. Number 1442 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Cohen how he came up with the list of pollutants mentioned in his testimony, if it is not known what is being discharged. MR. COHEN replied that the categories of pollutants that he mentioned came from the Royal Caribbean web site. Number 1490 ROBERT REGES, Citizen Member, Cruise Control Inc., came before the committee to testify. He has been a resident of Alaska since 1977. He has lived in both Juneau and Fairbanks. He is an attorney who specializes in environmental and natural resources law. His firm primarily represents the industry. He is here today to speak in favor of the bill. It will level the playing field with the shore-based industries that incur costs for recording, monitoring and reporting waste. There is no doubt that shore-based industries are subject to the jurisdictions of the various environmental laws, yet there is doubt as to which laws apply to transient vessels that carry a foreign flag. Number 1543 MR. REGES continued. When he worked for the Department of Law as the attorney who handled enforcement actions for the Department of Environmental Conservation, he was amazed to find out that Regency Cruise Lines, which is no longer in business, did not have an agent for service of process in the state. Had they never declared bankruptcy in the state of New York, he said, the state of Alaska may not have found them to serve them with a lawsuit. Number 1597 MR. REGES continued. This legislation addresses the concept of registering and licensing in order for a business to avail itself to services provided by the state, specifically access to the courts. He said, If you are a builder, let's say, a developer or a bank or another business licensed in the Lower 48, an insurance company, you can't do business here in Alaska unless you register. And if you don't register, you're not allowed to bring a claim or counterclaim. You're not allowed to defend yourself and use our courts. That's the penalty, if you will, for not coming forward ahead of time and telling us who you are, what you're gonna do here and ... what impacts you're gonna have. So, those are some of the provisions in the bill, sort of the threshold provisions, if you will, before you even get to the monitoring, and record keeping and recording, which to me are very basic matters that all of my clients, my shore-based clients have to comply with. And I don't know why we'd would give an economic advantage to the foreign flagged vessels. Number 1659 MR. REGES continued. With regard to the bill itself, there has been a concerted effort to review existing regulatory programs to avoid redundancy. There may be some, he said, but he is confident that as the bill moves through the process they will be eliminated. He asserted that the reporting requirements hit close to home, for he sat on a committee that looked at the issue of the cruise ships overloading Juneau's incinerator during the summer. The committee couldn't get any information from the cruise ships to help them solve the problem. He also noted that Juneau residents participate in household hazardous waste collection days for batteries and the such, yet the cruise ships don't participate even though they are essentially floating households. These issues are a matter of local concern. He further noted that the cruise lines themselves have policies in place that meet or exceed the stringent environmental standards, yet those same companies have indicated that there is a problem due to a lack of credibility. He said, Well, if you want credibility, I know from representing industry, bring forth the evidence that you're doing it right. You tell me you have policies in place. You tell me you're doing it right. You ought to be supporting something like this. Number 1891 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Reges whether anybody monitors him to make sure that he disposes of his batteries properly. MR. REGES replied that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Environmental Conservation periodically monitor landfills to ensure that they are not accepting household hazardous wastes. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said, however, that nobody comes and monitors him personally or the public, for that matter. MR. REGES explained that he is asked before entering the landfill; otherwise, the collection agency is responsible. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said, if somebody dumps a battery into a garbage can, chances are it won't be found. MR. REGES replied that seems like a rational conclusion. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said the private sector really isn't monitored; it's more of an honor system. MR. REGES pointed out that monitoring, as indicated in the bill, is directed at the industry, not the consumer. Number 1982 CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Mr. Reges whether he primarily represents the cruise ship industry. MR. REGES replied no, he is not here today on behalf of the cruise ship industry; he is here today as a citizen member of Cruise Control Inc., a nonprofit corporation advocating for responsible tourism. Number 2012 MICHAEL CONWAY, Director, Division of Statewide Public Service, Department of Environmental Conservation, came before the committee to testify. He told the committee that the department shares Representative Kerttula's goals and appreciates her efforts. The department agrees that more information is needed about cruise ship discharges and admissions. Right or wrong, he said, the department doesn't have the facts, which is unacceptable. The department has established four work groups and has given them wide latitude to verify the problems and make advisory recommendations to a steering committee consisting of the cruise ship industry, the Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, and various communities. The oil spill response group, he noted, is looking at how to improve response capabilities for oil spills. The air quality group, the water quality group and the environmental leadership group are being co-chaired by a combination of federal and state representatives. Number 2110 MR. CONWAY continued. The results of these work groups could include monitoring and reporting requirements, changes to operating procedures, new equipment, potential permitting activities, et cetera. The department is looking at short-term recommendations by early May [2000], but it may take several years to implement the more complex solutions. He said, If the legislature and the public would like to institutionalize an ongoing reporting system, that's okay with us. We also support the people's right to know. One note of caution. We may find this particular reporting system is not exactly what we need in the future after a further analysis of the information and issues and discussions with the work groups members and the steering committee. If the bill passes this year, we would like to have the opportunity to suggest changes to these requirements down the line based upon our analysis of the information we gather. Number 2153 CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Mr. Conway whether Commissioner Michele Brown [Department of Environmental Conservation] has a position on the bill. MR. CONWAY replied that the department's energy is going towards the steering committee and work groups, which is a parallel effort to the legislation. Number 2172 CHAIRMAN HALCRO indicated that the industry is concerned because that parallel effort may be putting the "cart before the horse." In other words, legislation is being put forth, while at the same time, work groups are still trying to "hammer out" certain issues. He asked Mr. Conway whether the department is concerned that the legislation is getting ahead of the process that they have already started to undertake. MR. CONWAY replied that the department isn't concerned about the legislation. The department is focusing their energy on the other processes. Number 2212 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Conway whether bioremediation is being considered as an acceptable way to clean up discharge. MR. CONWAY replied that those sorts of response techniques are approved on a case-by-case basis by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard. Number 2262 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he'd asked because ballast water from the oil tankers in Valdez is treated, then returned to the water cleaner than what it was before. MR. CONWAY commented that the Valdez Marine Terminal has a state- of-the-art treatment system for ballast water. But ballast water is not of a concern, primarily because it is handled where vessels receive their fuel; in this case, that's either Vancouver or Seattle. Furthermore, water that has come in contact with residual fuel and pumped to a treatment facility is an operational requirement. This bill deals only with reporting requirements. He said: I just wanted to make the point that if there are operational kinds of requirements for treatment facilities and there is state-of-the-art technology to be able to do that it costs money. So, ... that's not what we have been looking at because we ... believe there's a lot of operational controls that can be done to minimize the impacts and still allow the industry to operate vigorously. Number 2331 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated that he is questioning why the cruise ships couldn't do the same for ballast water, but on a smaller scale. MR. CONWAY commented that the water quality work group has indicated that the cruise ship industry is exploring new developments and treatments. Number 2396 RANDY RAY, Representative, U.S. Cruise Ship Association [USCSA], came before the committee to testify. The USCSA is a new organization consisting of U.S. flagged cruise ship lines. They came together because of the governmental concerns of the cruise ship industry, for U.S. flagged vessels also discharge graywater, black water, and the occasional unplanned discharge. But U.S. flagged vessels are different in terms of load, risk, and oversight. The most obvious difference is size. The association represents boats that hold 12 to 138 passengers. In terms of load, graywater comes from the galleys, bars, sinks, and showers. Black water comes from the toilet systems. The average discharge for gray and black water is between 1,000 to 6,000 gallons a day, which equates to about a city of 100 people. TAPE 00-22, SIDE B Number 0001 MR. RAY continued. In terms of risk, the vessels that the association represents do not have dry-cleaning facilities, laundry facilities, print shops, photo processing labs or hair salons. They use local vendors for those services. MR. RAY continued. In terms of oversight, the Coast Guard inspects all foreign and domestic flagged cruise vessels. But foreign vessels are built and repaired in foreign ship yards without Coast Guard supervision, while domestic vessels are built and repaired in domestic ship yards with Coast Guard oversight and U.S. licensed crews. In terms of environmental oversight, some infractions are turned over to the home port of the vessel, which means that some are never resolved. A violation of a domestic vessel is adjudicated in the U.S. MR. RAY continued. U.S. flagged cruise vessels focus on eco- tourism. They do not fall under this legislation because of their size, but they are committed to meet the spirit of it and the intent of the work groups established by the Department of Environmental Conservation. This summer they will be contracting with a lab in Juneau to sample and test the content of their gray and black water, which will be provided to the legislature and the Department of Environmental Conservation. The association hopes to show Alaskans that they need not be concerned about U.S. flagged vessels. Number 0121 CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Mr. Ray whether the vessels that he represents would not fall under this legislation. MR. RAY replied correct. They are under 300 gross registered tons. CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked whether the USCSA has taken a position on the bill. MR. RAY replied that the association hasn't taken a position on the bill because they aren't covered by it. He is present today to express that they plan to meet the intent of the legislation, and that they plan to provide gray and black water monitoring results to the state. CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Mr. Ray whether the USCSA recognizes the fact that local communities should have a right to know what's happening in their waters. MR. RAY replied, "Yes." The vessels that he represents employ many Alaskans as naturalists, geologists and marine biologists. Number 0162 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Ray to explain to committee members why it's important that vessels do not have dry-cleaning facilities, hair salons, et cetera. MR. RAY explained that it's important because silver sometimes gets through the systems, which is a heavy metal and very toxic in a marine environment. Number 0222 ED PAGE, Captain; and Chief of Staff, Marine Safety and Environmental Protection, 17th Coast Guard District, U.S. Coast Guard, came before the committee to testify. The U.S. Coast Guard has been very active in the work groups and steering committee, for they share in the concerns and are one of the primary regulatory agencies to ensure compliance with various environmental regulations. He noted that the genesis of these concerns is the direct result of findings from U.S. Coast Guard overflights and inspections of a few cruise line vessels. He further noted that there are a sweep of regulations that cover these concerns and that the U.S. Coast Guard has been raising the bar voluntarily to improve them. CAPTAIN PAGE continued. The issues that Representative Kerttula brought up are not fully addressed at this point in time, which is why there are work groups; in that way, they can accelerate the process. CAPTAIN PAGE continued. The U.S. Coast Guard looks at emissions and discharges differently. For example, treated graywater can be discharged anywhere offshore. Treated black water can be discharged in internal waters, and untreated black water can be discharged at sea or three miles offshore. MARPOL 1 [International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution] allows for the discharge of ballast water, if it's less than 15 parts per million near shore or offshore. MARPOL 5 allows for the discharge of treated garbage three miles offshore and floating garbage twelve miles offshore. CAPTAIN PAGE continued. The U.S. Coast Guard boards vessels four times a year and conducts inspections on both safety and environmental regulations. They look at the type of garbage generated, how it is incinerated, and where it is discharged. In most cases, it is recycled and returned to Vancouver for discharge. They also look at the sewage treatment system and if there are any questions samples are taken. The Coast Guard also conducts overflights with fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters to inspect the waters to ensure that cruise ships are not discharging oil. The Coast Guard appreciates the concerns and efforts of those involved, and because of those efforts, they think that this year will be better than last year, and that there will be better systems in place in the future. Number 0517 CHAIRMAN HALCRO stated that it seems the work groups are focusing on policy. He asked Captain Page whether there is any work being done on reporting. CAPTAIN PAGE replied, not that he can recall. Right now, reporting is handled by recordkeeping. For example, a log is kept for garbage, but there is no reporting requirements for graywater or black water. Number 0647 CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Captain Page whether the argument could be made that this bill is a nice support piece for the policies that are being put in place. CAPTAIN PAGE replied, "Yes." The bill complements some of the efforts, and in some cases it offers a different spin or approach. For example, MARPOL 5 requires a log to be kept and available for inspection, while the bill requires a report to the state. Similarly, the U.S. Coast Guard doesn't require any type of reporting for graywater because it's legal to discharge it anywhere. It's an automatic process. When the tank is full, it is discharged. There is no equipment that indicates when it is being discharged. CHAIRMAN HALCRO closed the meeting to public testimony. CHAIRMAN HALCRO indicated he'd originally planned to hold the bill in committee, but in listening to the testimony and looking around the room and seeing a lack of representation from the larger cruise ships, he would assume that they are not opposed to the bill. He said he would entertain a motion to move the bill out of committee. Number 0698 REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN KEMPLEN made a motion to move CSHB 371, version 1-LS1327\H, Lauterbach, 3/17/00, out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK objected. She referred to an article written by Commissioner Michele Brown and Mr. Thomas Barrett, dated March 17, 2000, in the Anchorage Daily News. The article refers to the work groups and steering committee, which appear to have an aggressive schedule and are working together with those involved, she said. The bill isn't necessary. It's reinventing the wheel. For those reasons, she objects to moving the bill forward. Number 0853 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY objected as well. He is not convinced that the system needs to be fixed, he explained. He would like to hold the bill in committee until more information is provided on the existing regulations. Number 0876 CHAIRMAN HALCRO stated that the testimony has indicated that the work groups are busy focusing on policies and regulations, and that there are several holes with regard to reporting. As Captain Page indicated, there are several areas where this bill would compliment the existing efforts under way. Moreover, given the unfortunate dumping incident last year in Southeast Alaska, too much information is not a bad thing. This bill also has three additional committees of referral; any new information that comes to life could be presented in any one of those committees. He would tend to believe the well-educated testimony from the individuals involved in the process rather than a newspaper article taken out of context. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated that she does not appreciate the words Chairman Halcro is using in reference to the newspaper article. It was written by the commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, who is actively involved in the effort. CHAIRMAN HALCRO replied that he has read the article as well, but given the testimony from those who are well-versed in the procedures, processes and work groups, he would take their word in addition to that of Commissioner Brown's. Furthermore, Mr. Conway of DEC has indicated that the commissioner is pretty much in support of the legislation. Number 0969 REPRESENTATIVE ALBERT KOOKESH stated that he tends to believe those who testify, because they strongly believe in what they say and put a lot of time and effort into their theories. They deserve credit for coming forward. He also appreciates newspaper articles. He can't believe that Commissioner Brown would disagree with this legislation; otherwise, the representative from the department would have indicated so. In response to Representative Cowdery's comment, he said there isn't a system in place to break. Moreover, since he lives in Southeast Alaska, he is concerned about its waters; there will be a time when there is a problem in another area of the state, and he will also listen to those from that area. He thinks people ought to give those who represent Southeast Alaska and the waters thereof some due respect. He will vote to move the bill forward. Number 1055 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated that he thinks the bill doesn't recognize the degree of regulations already in place. He asked whether the ferry system would fall under the same regulations. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA answered that a ferry over 300 gross registered tons would fall under the bill; she wasn't certain, however, of the weight of any of the ferries. She pointed out that the ferry system does not have services onboard like hair salons and photo-processing labs. Number 1099 CHAIRMAN HALCRO pointed out that SB 273, which also deals with tonnage and reporting requirements, is now working its way through the Senate. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Halcro, Kookesh and Kemplen voted to move CSHB 371, version 1-LS1327\H, Lauterbach, 3/17/00, out of committee. Representatives Masek and Cowdery voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 371(TRA) so moved from the House Transportation Standing Committee by a vote of 3-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|