Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/18/1998 03:40 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 128 - WATER QUALITY; WATER SCIENCE OVERSIGHT BD
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:40 p.m. and announced HB 128 to be up for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he introduced HB 128 to identify a
better way to establish water quality standards in Alaska. It
seeks a scientific fact based understanding of our unique water
bodies and uses, and establishes a mechanism for DEC to form a
partnership with interested parties to seek funding for water
quality research. The goal of the research is to substitute
science and certainty for the emotional political debate that
characterizes water quality regulations in the State. Without
Alaska specific arctic/subarctic research, the federal
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will not accept Alaska
specific changes to our own water quality regulations. The vast
majority of interested parties agree to a concept of forming a
partnership to seek funding for five years of technical research.
The Alaska Science and Technology Foundation, monies direct from
Washington D.C. and Senator Stevens, and industry money are
potential sources of funding. However, they can only accept
application from a public agency if it's in partnership with a
private organization. Federal funds may be sought at a future date
and it's not his intent to request general funds for this research.
He said this is not simply pro-mining legislation; it affects
minerals development, fisheries and processing, municipal out
falls, and any discharge into a body of water in Alaska. This bill
is about the preservation of the image and quality of clear,
pristine waters in Alaska and embodies the concept of multiple use.
The mining industry has said they can support a water standard, if
it is based on science.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that DEC indicated using general fund
monies.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified that he is not asking for general
funds to finance the science. DEC has a need for funds to
establish the partnering, but not for the five years of scientific
basis.
SENATOR TAYLOR offered technical amendments for the dates on page
4, line 18 to change "1997" to "1998;" also on page 4, line 20 to
change "2002" to "2003." There were no objections and the
amendments were adopted.
SENATOR TAYLOR offered another technical amendment on page 3, line
13 where the Board members are compensated for $300 per day. It
would seem more appropriate, if they are compensated at least at
the same rate that legislators received per day which when you
divide the $24,000 salary into 365 days, comes out to a daily rate
of $65.78. So he rounded it off to $66 saying they would still get
per diem on top of that.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he would take that under advisement since he
didn't formally offer the amendment.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if it would be reasonable to limit any one who
is a contractor to the Department as a Board member or would that
eliminate some of the talent they want on that Board.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he would like to think about that and
talk to some people from the mining industry and other industries
he is trying to help.
MR. MIKE CONWAY, Director, Air and Water Quality Division, said
they supported this bill.
MR. CLYNT NAUMAN, President, Council of Alaska Producers, supported
this bill, also. They see water quality at a point where it is
critical to the industry and to the State.
MS. CHARLOTTE MACKAY, Cominco, stated that water criteria for the
State of Alaska is based on criteria adapted from studies conducted
in more temperate areas of the United States. One of the main
inhibitors in getting water quality research is that once the study
is completed, there is no balanced credible audience of appropriate
expertise to evaluate the study's conclusions and there is no
commitment on behalf of the State to apply scientifically supported
recommendations.
HB 128 sets up a Water Quality Board that will provide for the
credible evaluation of water quality research studies to serve the
State as well as convince the EPA. It also provides for a
commitment on behalf of the State to seriously consider the Board's
recommendations. It should be noted that neither the State nor the
industries pursuing this research can predict the outcome of these
studies, but are committed to living with the results of standards
based on sound science. At present, they have initiated studies
through the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation as co-
applicants with DEC and ADF&G to determine the level at which
totally dissolved solids become toxic. Further studies regarding
PH and [indisc] toxicity are anticipated in the future.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he understood that Alaska had one water quality
standard which was for drinking water.
MS. MACKAY responded no; that there are various standards for
protection of aquatic life, industrial uses, etc.
Number 254
MS. PEGGY WILCOX testified on behalf of herself and said there are
a few things that concerned her. Although the legislative intent
is fantastic, she looked at the Water Science Oversight Board which
would be qualified individuals, but political appointees. They
would review a plan put together by DEC and interested parties, and
if you remove DEC, the interested parties who have the education
are probably going to be employed by the industry. Of the three
things they are to examine, the third one is relative costs and
benefits of toxicity testing methods. She was also concerned with
the removal of drinking water (the human element) from the bill, or
making differentiation between water that's going to be coming out
of the outfall of a mine pipe and water that could potentially be
consumed.
She also agreed with Senator Taylor about the $300 fee which would
come out to $12,000 for five members at a minimum of four days.
She thought the $12,000 could be better used in hiring another
scientist.
SENATOR LEMAN asked her to clarify what she meant by removal of the
human element.
MS. WILCOX explained on page 2, lines 9, 11, and 14 talk about
aquatic life criteria, toxicity testing procedures, and relative
costs and benefits of testing methods. This would be what the
Board would be addressing. She thought adding a fourth criteria
regarding the extent toxics are already present and affecting
public health would be useful.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said the intent was to set up as impartial a
board as can possibly be done as an oversight board of scientific
research that will be done by real scientists. Both industry and
the regulators will, then, have a basis on which they can establish
standards on which they can manipulate the water. He didn't think
there was any lack of the human element and there will be testing
of what the water body currently consists of as they start up.
From that they will determine what the effects would be on that
base for various applications.
Number 350
MR. CONWAY commented that the human health criteria is well
documented because human beings are pretty much the same here as
they are in other parts of the country. Human health isn't at
issue, but the kinds of species we find in Alaska and what is their
ability is to respond to things that occur naturally in Alaska that
may not be occurring in other places. He added that any time there
is an operation that goes into place there is a permitting process
which takes these standards and applies them to the situation that
is at hand. There is rigorous criteria to go through to make sure
public health would not be in danger.
MS. WILCOX said the term "cost benefit of toxicity" makes her
cringe.
MR. CONWAY explained that was directed at the methods of getting
the information you need. If you can get it from a field test kit
or something easy like that, why should you have to send samples
potentially out of state and spend thousands of dollars.
MS. WILCOX thanked them for answering her questions.
MS. BETH CARLSON, Sierra Club, said they do not support the bill as
written. She questioned that the Board would be reliable because
of legislative budget cuts and because section 26.03.85(b) allows
the Board to set its own compensation level for partial work days
and such a cost is an unknown factor. This leads to their second
concern. While the legislature finds it is important for the DEC
to conduct adequate research prior to proposing and implementing
water quality regulations and the Department has often had to act
without specific data about the State's water, this proposed
legislation rather than providing additional funding to address
these concerns, places an additional burden or duty on Department
officials by requiring them to seek funds to perform research.
Surely this added duty can only detract from research we all agree
is necessary. She wonders when DEC will come to them to ask for
money since they are involved in water sports, although she doubts
that would happen. It appears that "interested parties" does not
actually include all parties interested in water quality.
Her third concern is the increased bureaucracy it creates. She
agrees that citizen oversight and involvement in government is
important, but they think that such oversight and involvement
already exists through the pubic review and comment process. The
public would be better served by hiring more scientists to work for
the Department in allocating adequate funds for them to perform the
necessary research they all agree is necessary.
MS. CARLSON said also that the Governor is fully qualified for
appointing an oversight board comprised of individuals who satisfy
the requirements in section 46.03.85(a).
MS. PATTI SAUNDERS, Assistant Director, Alaska Conservation Voice,
said they agree with the intent of this bill that the policy of the
State is to protect the quality and uses of the State's water.
They also support the concept of promulgating regulations based on
good research, however the solution proposed in HB 128 is ill-
advised and is not likely to further the goal of protecting
Alaska's water quality and public health. If the problem is that
DEC doesn't have sufficient staff to get enough research to
promulgate toxicity standards, the easiest and best solution is to
give DEC the funds necessary to do the work. Creation of an
oversight board is problematic because empowering the legislature
to appoint board members inappropriately and unnecessarily
politicizes the development of toxicity standards in direct
contravention of the purported purpose of the bill. The
qualifications required for board members all but guarantees that
qualified people with a public interest perspective will be
excluded from the board, while individuals who may be technically
qualified, but are none-the-less employed by industry as staff and
consultants, would undoubtedly fill most of the seats. The Board
research plan is limited to how much toxicity ought to be allowed
in State waters and further is limited to toxic effects on aquatic
life. The bill does not provide for toxicity standards based on
public health considerations, nor does it provide any mechanisms
for dealing with accumulations of toxic material already present in
our environment from past industrial practices. The notion of
using private (industry) money to fund this project goes against
every principal of good government. If good research is so
important to protecting good Alaskan water quality and the public
interest, we ought to be willing to pay for it using public funds.
It would preserve the appearance and reality of unbiased objective
science. This bill will ensure that only the parts that industry
is willing to pay for will move forward.
She concluded that they should adequately fund DEC to do the
research that would help protect the public and the environment.
Number 450
SENATOR LEMAN noted that Ms. Carlson was concerned about the
political issues with the legislature in appointing board members,
but wasn't concerned about the same thing with the Governor. The
legislature is meant to represent the people and is to just suggest
two lists of three names each.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he appreciated the vote of confidence, since he
was intending to change the Governor in the next election.
MS. CARLSON responded that her concern is that this procedure is
substantially different from the normal procedure for the
appointment of boards and she didn't think it was appropriate nor
was there any justification for changing the appointment process.
It also clearly puts control in the hands of the legislature.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if this board would require legislative
confirmation.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD answered that it didn't, because it's not
regulatory; it's quasi-judicial.
SENATOR GREEN added that there were other lists of board members
submitted by the University of Alaska, the Governor, and the
Commissioner or the Commissioner's designee.
MS. CARLSON responded that her concern is with the process and the
extent to which this differs from the normal process for appointing
boards and then confirmation.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if this is a five-year board.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied yes.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he was concerned if it's not their intent to
have a sunset review and this is a temporary board, that should be
clarified.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said the intent is to have a temporary board.
They want to get in, establish the science, establish the
regulations, then be done with it.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if he would object to a sunset date that
would direct a repeal after five years. He said they are already
going to change the date anyway. He said it would have to be after
the Department submits its research.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he would accept an actual sunset at the
end of five full years of research.
Number 529
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said they would hold the bill for further work
before passing it.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|