Legislature(2013 - 2014)BUTROVICH 205
03/12/2014 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB77 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 77-LAND USE/DISP/EXCHANGES; WATER RIGHTS
3:32:05 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced HB 77 to be up for consideration [2d SCS
CSHB 77(RES), version 28-GH1524\H, was before the committee].
She said the committee had received many emails and letters of
both support and opposition and noted a written letter from the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in answer to questions
Senator Donny Olson had posed, which she thought it would be
beneficial for committee members to see. She opened public
testimony on the H version of HB 77 and explained that some of
the major changes include:
- Individual person and federally recognized tribes can apply
for water reservations (page 24)
- General permits are now limited to activities the department
can already authorize through statute or regulations (examples
are private docks or mooring buoys in a river or offshore)
- Large resource development projects would need much more than
a general permit for their activities.
- The requirement for public notice and public comment are found
throughout the bill
- DNR is also required to consider seven points in determining
whether to grant a water reservation and whether that is in the
public's best interest (found on page 22 of the bill).
3:33:57 PM
These criteria include:
1. Benefit to the applicant
2. Effect of the economic activity
3. Effect on fish and game resources and on public recreation
opportunities
4. Effect on public health
5. Effect of loss or alternate use of water
6. Harm to other persons
7. Effect on access to navigable or public waters
3:35:46 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL said she would take names in the order of signing
up and from all the LIOs to get a geographic distribution of
public testimony. She said people could also e-mail their
testimony to her office.
BOBBY ANDREW, Nunamta Aulukestai, Dillingham, Alaska, said he is
president of Aleknagik Natives Limited, and opposed HB 77. He
said Monday's changes do not go far enough to warrant its
passage. The general permit provisions still grant too much
authority to the commissioner. The extensive nature of the
general permit still allows too many important decisions and
activities to take place without the public eye, without public
notice, and without the public's right to appeal a decision -
and also without consulting with the current water reservation
applicants, which he thought should be grandfathered in.
He said the short general permit comment period of 30 days
almost ensures that an application won't get the type of review
that it should before its approval. Automatic approval of all
legal activities within the general permit area without public
review denies the public the opportunity to address the decision
that might have the greatest effect on it; for instance, stream
crossings and water rights.
3:38:53 PM
LUKI AKELKOK, JR., Mayor, City of Ekwok, and Chair, Ekwok Tribal
Council and Ekwok Natives Ltd., Ekwok, Alaska, opposed HB 77. He
said the committee needs to define "significant," "irreparable
harm," and "substantial and adversely impact." The entire newly
written section on water reservations for persons or tribes
seems like water lock-up, but those who live in rural Alaska on
a river must do everything they can to make sure they have
adequate water in it for fish and wildlife.
3:39:34 PM
SENATOR DYSON and SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH joined the committee.
MR. AKELKOK said in a letter dated on February 28, 2014, to
Senator Hoffman, that the Chikuminuk dam project and feasibility
project will be dropped. He also asked that the entire Section
47 (lines 16-23) be deleted.
3:41:02 PM
VICTORIA MCDONALD, representing herself, Ketchikan, Alaska,
opposed HB 77 for many reasons. First, the Alaska Constitution
states that out of stream uses are subject to "the general
reservation of fish and wildlife" in recognition that access to
fish and wildlife is for all residents.
Secondly, this version allows foreign corporations to obtain
rights to a water body. Alaskans cannot allow water rights to
fall into private hands. Next, the DNR commissioner is granted
the authority to issue general permits on state land, allowing
an override of DNR's own laws and statutes. These general
permits allow a range of activities over large areas of land,
possibly prior to a specific activity. Activities that relate to
this permit will be authorized under this permit and do not
require public notice.
Finally, HB 77 fails to define "likely, significant, or
irreparable harm." This is a subjective phrase and needs a
specific definition. Also, in order to appeal a DNR decision, a
citizen has to be "substantially and adversely impacted." Once
again, there is no objective definition.
3:43:04 PM
HAL SHEPHERD, Director, Center for Water Advocacy, Seward,
Alaska, opposed HB 77. He said 41 tribal resolutions, a record
number, opposing HB 77 were passed last year and there were
three or four hearings all over the state in which 700 people
appeared on record against HB 77; one person favored the bill.
He said he had submitted written testimony from two Elim tribal
members who could not attend the meeting and that mostly people
don't favor this bill not because of its impact on the
environment or water resources, but mostly because of its
impacts on the state's civil rights and democracy. The cosmetic
amendments pretty much amount to nothing more than rearranging
the deck chairs on the Titanic.
3:45:36 PM
MIKE FRICCERO, representing himself, Kodiak, Alaska, opposed HB
77. He said the recent amendments didn't help resolve any of the
major issues. They represent expanded power to the DNR
commissioner and diminished public participation and due
process. The CS endows radical changes to existing water rights
regulations and limits his legal right to challenge the DNR. It
only represents the interests of extractors and resource
developers, not the general public, and diminishes the rights of
tribal organizations. It cancels and avoids due process and
protections and reduces the state's ability to protect water
sources; it eliminates public oversight of DNR activities and
removes protections for fish and wildlife habitat.
He said we are on the eve of a resource extraction and
exploratory boom and the DNR will be inundated with an
unprecedented volume of permitting applications and this is not
the time to streamline the permitting process and making it less
rigorous. It is time to increase funding and staff at DNR to
make sure there is adequate oversight. It is time to require
mandatory baseline water volumes in all fish bearing waterways.
3:48:00 PM
LAURIE DANIEL, representing herself, Homer, Alaska, opposed HB
77 saying it was also known as the "Silencing Alaskans Act." The
amendments in the revised version do not address the major
problems with this legislation; the administration took 10
months to develop it behind closed doors and is "allowing a bare
two days for public review."
She said the revised version still eliminates opportunities for
the Alaska public to weigh in on statewide land, water, and
natural resource development decisions; it impacts almost any
activity or use on state land that requires a permit. It takes
away the power from the people and puts it in the hands of state
government by granting broad powers to the DNR and makes it
difficult to challenge its decisions. It still takes water
reservation rights away from tribes, Native corporations, non-
profit organizations and individuals, and the text uses
ambiguous undefined terminology like "unlikely to cause
significant or irreparable harm" and "substantial and adversely
affected."
3:50:16 PM
GABRIEL SCOTT, Alaska Legal Director, Cascadia Wildlands,
Cordova, Alaska, opposed HB 77. He said they are a non-profit
conservation organization and don't see any problem to solve;
legitimate development is not being blocked by public
participation. He couldn't think of one project that had been
stopped through a state appeal. In fact, he said the only time
development is slowed down is when an agency has flagrantly
broken the law; so, therefore the interests this bill protects
are agencies getting away with flagrantly breaking the law.
Secondly, this bill doesn't streamline development; it codifies
the idea that rather than having a democracy where regular
citizens participate through the process into forcing
confrontation and litigation for every appeal or public notice
right.
3:52:39 PM
DANIEL LUM, representing himself, Barrow, Alaska, opposed HB 77.
He said they should hear by now that an overwhelming majority of
Alaskans are against HB 77. Industry is pressuring them into
pushing this bad bill into law. If this legislation passes,
people's right will be silenced. The commissioner has too much
power and there is no appeal process.
3:53:56 PM
MATTHEW DONOHOE, representing himself, Sitka, Alaska, opposed HB
77. He is on the board of the Alaska Trollers Association and
was concerned about the protection of habitat in some of the
language in the bill; for instance, the lack of definition of
"irreparable harm." It was also worrisome that the arbitrator of
that is the DNR commissioner who isn't an elected official.
He said the language for this bill came out only two days ago
and that is not enough time for his group to discuss it and they
opposed it as originally written. He mentioned that there were
20 other people in the room, a lot of whom wouldn't be able to
testify because there is only an hour and a half for the
hearing.
3:56:23 PM
GERALD BROOKMAN, representing himself, Kenai, Alaska, opposed HB
77. The only way it can be improved is to deep-six it even with
the changes. It gives too much power to the DNR commissioner to
the detriment of the state's people, fish and wildlife.
3:57:34 PM
ALBERT JUDSON, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, opposed HB
77. He was testifying to ask one question: "When and how the
mission statement for the Department of Natural Resources was
changed and whether anybody on the committee knows."
3:58:50 PM
DAN DUNAWAY, representing himself, Dillingham, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. He said he would like to see the Chikuminuk Lake study
language purged if they don't just throw away the whole bill.
The one privately-owned piece of land in that area belongs to
the Bristol Bay Area Heritage Land Trust and it is the only
likely site for any hydro-electric development. The Land Trust
selected that site to make sure development didn't occur there
and KDLG Radio just said that Nuvista had shelved that project.
He also shared Senator French's concern that DNR had not
processed any completed applications and that they should not be
allowed to sit on them for 22 years without some sort of
response from the applicant. And like others said, a 30-day
public comment period for people in the Bush subsisting is not
enough time for them to respond. It's inevitable that these
things show up in the middle of June or salmon season when they
are all spread out and subsisting.
4:01:25 PM
HERMAN NELSON SR., Tribal President, Koliganek Tribal Council,
Koliganek, Alaska, opposed HB 77. It would make it more
difficult for an individual Alaskan to challenge DNR's decision,
especially in the 200-300 small tribal communities. It would
give too much power to the DNR commissioner to disregard its own
laws and statutes that have taken years to develop through
public participation. He said they applied for their water
reservations to protect the water needed for salmon and other
wildlife resources. The Woodtikchik Lakes are part of Chikuminuk
area and it's one of the most beautiful places you can go; you
wouldn't want to build a dam there.
4:03:46 PM
PETER CHRISTOPHER, Vice President, Stuyahok Limited, New
Stuyahok, Alaska, opposed HB 77. He supported the folks who
spoke on the Chikuminuk Lake issue. They live within the natural
resources and that is why they are concerned.
4:06:38 PM
ALEXUS KWACHKA, commercial fisherman, representing himself,
Kodiak, Alaska, opposed both HB 77 and the amendments.
4:07:18 PM
MARY SADLER, Donlin Gold, Bethel, Alaska, read a letter from
Stan Foo, General Manager for Donlin Gold that supported HB 77,
because it improved efficiency in permitting.
4:08:58 PM
PHIL GORDON, representing himself, Homer, Alaska, opposed HB 77.
He said an entire roomful of people there would not be able to
testify in the limited time allowed. That represents the kind of
anti-democracy they are getting from their administration and
government. Public opinion is not something that should be
avoided; rather it should be emphasized. The streamlining in HB
77 is short-sighted and ignores the need to protect resources
for future generations of Alaskans.
4:10:37 PM
ROSEMARY MCGUIRE, representing herself, Cordova, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. She said it's absolutely ludicrous that they are not
getting enough time to comment on a bill that removes their
ability to comment. It gives too much authority to the
commissioner. She is a commercial fisherman and her livelihood
depends on a healthy watershed and this does not necessarily
make it possible.
4:11:49 PM
CALLEN CHRISTENSEN, representing Fairbanks Youth, Fairbanks,
Alaska, opposed HB 77. He said a number from his group had
traveled to Juneau to testify that the Alaska Constitution
explicitly reserves natural resources to the people of Alaska
for common use and offers safeguards to protect them. He
implored them to not pass this bill in any form.
4:13:08 PM
ERIC JORDAN, representing himself, Sitka, Alaska, opposed HB 77.
He said he was a 64-year old Southeast Alaska fisherman and
thanked them for taking the time to hear his comments on
rewritten HB 77, which it's clear the governor and sponsors have
made clear they don't want to hear or be considered in the
future.
4:14:44 PM
ROBERT RUFFNER, Executive Director, Kenai Watershed Forum,
Soldotna, Alaska, opposed HB 77. He said they have worked
extensively with the resource agency since their incorporation
in 1997 and had budgets in excess of $3 million, much of which
has been spent on stream restoration-type work. The restoration
work they focus on is mostly culverts and fish passage, but they
have also tackled much more complex projects that involve
diverting sections of the Anchor River for more than a quarter
of a mile. Anyhow, they are very familiar with the regulatory
requirements for permitting in a multi-jurisdictional
environment and they have maintained a stellar relationship with
the permitting staff that oversee those permits. So, he didn't
see the problem that needs to be fixed by this bill.
They applaud Senator Micciche's efforts to gather more input and
address the concerns, and he wanted to focus his comments on
Section 42(h) in the CS, page 23, line 18. This section
consolidates discretionary authority in the DNR commissioner
with no transparency or certainty of fair consideration. They
don't think every water right or reservation should be granted,
but there needs to be a fair process for consideration and a
clear pathway to reach a decision.
4:17:22 PM
MELANIE BROWN, representing herself, Juneau, Alaska, wanted them
to include customary users in the language. She goes to the
Naknek River district in Bristol Bay every summer to commercial
fish and gather subsistence foods for her family. Others in her
family help her fill her freezer with game and fish, which
offsets the cost of feeding her family. The reason she brought
this up is because she was really concerned with how
"traditional and customary use" fits in with the definition of
"standing." In more than seven sections she noted "substantially
and adversely affected" is used to define who has the right to
appeal a DNR land use decision. It's only defined once in
Section 39 and she fears that definition excludes traditional
and customary users (commonly known as subsistence users). The
language states that physical or financial detriment to the
person's interest is what defines whether or not they have the
right to stand in front of DNR to appeal a decision and it's
really difficult to quantify the value of subsistence or
traditional and customary food for a family who relies heavily
on those activities into dollars and cents. If that was not the
original intent, she asked them to please revisit this language
to make sure that they include traditional and customary users.
4:19:39 PM
LAURA COMER, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, asked why
they hadn't heard from the Matsu LIO and then passed off her
time to Stuart Grenier.
STUART GRENIER, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. He said at a Muldoon Constituent meeting with
Representative Gruenberg, Representative LaDoux, and Senator
Wielechowski, Representative Gruenberg pointed out that across
the board the public was being cut out of the process on very
important decisions involving resources. This is something they
really need to be concerned about.
He also mentioned that some changes in technological allow
corporations unbelievable abilities to police their areas. They
might be seeing the "third-worlding" of Alaska.
4:21:32 PM
DENNIS ANDREW, SR., Member, New Stuyahok Tribal Council and New
Stuyahok Ltd. Board of Directors, Dillingham, Alaska, opposed HB
77 and version H. He was opposed to any limiting of any public
participation or notice and said more should be done to
encourage sharing of information and working together for the
benefit of Alaskans who seem to be aligning along two sides:
resource development versus environmental protection. This bill
further divides them. Rural Alaskans can't just go to Carrs or
Safeway; they rely on the waters for their fish and the land for
their game, but they use the water to gain access in the harvest
of the game. "The water is our dinner table," he said.
The latest version of HB 77 still gives the DNR commissioner too
much authority to decide what is good for the state, and that
adds politics into the decision making which is influenced by
who has the money to pay that high-priced lobbyist. This bill
uses terms such as "sustainability" and "harmed" and those are
not defined. Based on Nuvista's letter, dated February 28, 2014,
to Senator Hoffman, the Chikuminuk dam project will be dropped
and Section 47, lines 16-23, should be deleted.
4:24:32 PM
WARREN KEOGH, representing himself, Chickaloon, Alaska, private
land owner and water right holder of both surface and subsurface
water and former water rights coordinator for the Fish and
Wildlife Service in Alaska, opposed HB 77. He said he was one of
20 people in the Matsu LIO who were glad to have the time to
speak.
MR. KEOGH said he has a stream running through his property and
that HB 77 is a "Medusa-like" bill that is fundamentally flawed.
He had hoped the public outcry in several meetings over the past
few months would result in significant changes to the bill, but
unfortunately the meager DNR changes are more superficial than
substantive.
He said he would address two aspects of the many problems in
this bill regarding changes to Alaska's Water Use Act:
First, in regard to temporary water use permits, the language
added to Section 43 explicitly allows repeated issuance of five-
year long temporary use permits for projects that may go on for
decades while the DNR commissioner avoids adjudicating a water
reservation application for the same water body.
Second, the term "person" has been rightfully returned to the
bill's language in terms of water reservations. However, he had
a problem with not allowing an applicant to hold the water
reservation but instead mandating transfer of the reservation to
a public agency.
He said the amended language is an exercise in semantic smoke
that disenfranchises the applicant and disincentives anyone from
applying for an in-stream flow reservation in the first place.
For instance, what is his incentive for expending time, effort
and money to reserve a small amount of water in the stream that
flows through his property for the purposes of protecting fish
passage, spawning, and rearing habitat in perpetuity if he can't
hold that water reservation? Transferring that right to a state
agency makes no sense.
4:27:05 PM
MARTHA ITTA, Vice President, Nuiqsut Tribal Council, Nuiqsut,
Alaska, opposed HB 77 for a lot of reasons. They heavily depend
on their subsistence food and silencing their voices is a big
concern, because they are heavily surrounding by oil and gas
development. Experiencing a well blow-out was really bad; they
had no help, whatsoever. So, it is very important that their
voices be heard.
Another reason she opposed HB 77 was to protect her children
from cancer and from any kind of illness caused by the chemicals
they breathe in. They have already lost two babies. Her family
and community have the right to live a healthy life; this bill
will take that all away.
4:29:03 PM
SAM KUNKNANA, Member, Nuiqsut Tribal Council, Nuiqsut, Alaska,
opposed HB 77 for reasons that give certain people the right to
change the way they do their traditional way of life.
4:30:08 PM
ELI NUKAPIGAK, representing himself, Nuiqsut, Alaska, strongly
opposed HB 77. He had the same concerns over preservation of the
subsistence and rural lifestyle.
4:31:36 PM
JOEL COOPER, representing himself, Homer, Alaska, opposed HB 77.
He was also disappointed in the amount of time allowed for
people to testify, as there were 18 more people at the LIO in
Homer who all opposed the bill. He said it would substantially
and adversely impact him, the people of Alaska, and the fish and
wildlife of Alaska. It would likely cause significant or
irreparable harm. He didn't support giving more authority to the
DNR commissioner for large geographic projects that could impact
people who would not know what was going on. He was also
disappointed in how the filing for in-stream water rights was
revamped.
4:33:24 PM
JACK HOPKINS, representing the Native Village of Eyak, Eyak,
Alaska, opposed HB 77. He said Eyak has a tribal membership of
536 members and they oppose HB 77 in any form. He said allowing
a government agency that much power is not a benefit to the
public or the tribes.
4:34:10 PM
SARAH BARTHOLOW, representing herself, Fairbanks, Alaska,
opposed HB 77. She said she is an environmentally-minded wife of
a North Slope oil field worker and HB 77 excludes many Alaskans
regardless of how they choose to interact with the landscape
from having any say about it at all. Regarding her legal right
to challenge DNR permitting and decisions, she deserves the
right to argue against misalignment of priorities and a
dismissal of regulations if DNR unintentionally or purposely
decides not to play by the rules.
In regards to general permitting, the ambiguous language on
activities and end games versus the narrowing of public
engagement to those adversely affected elevates the hostility of
citizens they will deal with and only invites negativity into
the process. This is not how she wants to interact with
lawmakers and she feels they don't want that either.
4:35:55 PM
JAMES SWIFT, fisherman, representing himself, Sitka, Alaska,
opposed HB 77. He had always been involved in politics in Alaska
and had always felt he's had a voice, but this bill will take
his voice away. He had met too many people who didn't get
involved in politics, because they felt so powerless and this
doesn't help. The reason Alaska became a state is because it
didn't want large companies and Outside people dictating what to
do with our resources.
4:37:24 PM
STEVE SHOONMAKER, representing himself, Kasilof, Alaska, opposed
HB 77 as he has before. He stated: "Listen up to the tidal wave
of opposition to this bill." The public wants to continue to
have a say in the interests of management of its collective
commons; this includes their rights and responsibilities as
citizens in the stewardship of our waterways and salmon runs.
4:38:31 PM
JAMES SULLIVAN, lobbyist, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
(SEACC), Juneau, Alaska, opposed HB 77. He thanked them for
taking the time to reexamine it saying it is a poor piece of
legislation even though improvements have been made since last
year. It still empowers DNR to issue general permits for an
activity over broad geographic areas of state land; once the
general permit is in place, the public will never know about the
specific projects authorized by it, because they would not be
noticed to the public. The power is too broad considering that
the threshold for these general permits is that they not cause
"significant or irreparable harm;" the bar should be higher here
in Alaska.
Also, Mr. Sullivan said, the issue of "standing" had not been
fixed. DNR says they need this language to stop outside groups
from stopping DNR's permits, but the solution in this
legislation will only punish Alaskans. The length that DNR will
go to not acknowledge the rights of individuals with water
reservations is shameful.
4:40:47 PM
MONICA MARSHALL, representing herself and 100 other Alaska
Pacific University (APU) students, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed HB
77. As an Alaskan, she believed it's her right to have a say in
what happens to its resources. HB 77 removes public notice and a
comment period, leaving Alaskans out of the decision-making
process.
4:41:51 PM
KIMBERLY WILLIAMS, Executive Director, Nunamta Aulukestai,
Dillingham, Alaska, opposed HB 77. Her organization is comprised
of 10 village corporations and 10 tribal governments in Bristol
Bay. Her board opposes HB 77 even with the changes brought to
the committee from DNR.
She said their organization gets criticized because their
funding for advocacy specifically to make sure there is enough
water in their streams and rivers for fish and to support
wildlife comes from outside of Alaska. "How is that any
different that the resource development side, which our
developers from outside Alaska and many of them foreign owned
corporations?" she asked.
Furthermore, to say the duty to protect fish and wildlife
belongs to the ADF&G, they agree, however they believe that
since 2003, the agency's voice has been silenced by the
continued development mandate coming out of DNR. It is their
duty to listen to Alaskans and to have an open and transparent
process to ensure that all voices are heard for resource
development. HB 77 eliminates this important right.
The current version does nothing to address standing, which was
one of the main concerns with the original bill. Define what it
means to be "substantially and adversely impacted" in order to
appeal a DNR decision, as there is no definition, she said.
Define "likely significant or irreparable harm." Does this mean
the commissioner of DNR can issue a general permit if they are
51 percent certain that the harm can be repaired and in what
timeframe? They don't know and that needs to be defined.
Finally, DNR heard the outcry from the tribes and people across
Alaska and added them back into the water reservation section,
but it is worse now. Section 42 needs major revisions and
section 47 needs to be deleted given the latest announcement by
Nuvista that they are moving away from Chikuminuk.
4:44:01 PM
DODD SHAY, representing himself, Wasilla, Alaska, opposed HB 77.
He said there are about 30 people waiting to testify in Wasilla.
He said in 1983 he woke up incorporated into an 850 square-mile
city of Afognak where all his rights had been taken away by
development. The City Council was appointed by Governor Hammond
from a list submitted by the major developer. He had a real
problem with any resource being developed without the people
living there having their public rights. If all the land and
commerce is owned by multi-national corporations, they are
privileged and the residents have no voice.
He felt that any development should be mapped out with a
tremendous amount of land set aside for public housing, cities,
and public development.
4:46:02 PM
MAKO HAGGERTY, representing himself, Homer, Alaska, adamantly
opposed to HB 77 and its new version. He said it's just a bad
idea and he wondered where it came from. No one is in favor of
it except for the Donlin people.
4:47:28 PM
ALEXIS COOPER, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU),
Cordova, Alaska, opposed HB 77. She appreciated the opportunity
to testify on the new draft, but the 48 hours provided for
public consideration was too little to fully comprehend and
meaningfully testify on the issue. Changes had been made, but in
her initial reading the primary areas of concern with the
original bill persist: the lack of definition for several key
terms and phrases leaves far too much interpretation by future
administrations and commissioners; there remain gaps between the
stated intent and the actual language of this bill and they
remain uncomfortable with the expansion of the DNR power and the
erosion of concerned and affected Alaskan's ability to have a
voice in the process. For these reasons, they ask to slow the
process and continue the public dialogue in order to provide
clarity before it moves further forward.
4:49:04 PM
PAMELA MILLER, representing herself, Fairbanks, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. She said there are three others in the room who wished to
testify and one who had to leave early. She reviewed DNR's
changes to HB 77 and found the bill is still not balanced and
remains flawed. This 25 page bill makes sweeping complex changes
to the Alaska Land Act and Water Use Act, but its effect is
simple: it silences the voices of Alaskans and their ability to
speak up to protect healthy fish runs, animals, lands and the
waters across the state.
General permits allow agencies to issue one permit for a wide
range of activities over broad geographic areas, as much as a
million acres or more for over 10 years, potentially before an
application is even submitted. While DNR removed the sweeping
phrase "notwithstanding any other provision of law" in Section
1, this permitting authority still has a flaw in that it lets
DNR preapprove many kinds of activities from mining, exploration
and mine development to forest timber, water use, and things
that affect animals and fish, which could be done before the
public has any idea exactly when or where the activity might be
approved, who is doing the activity, and so on. The addition of
a public notice provision for general permits doesn't fix the
problem, because there is no opportunity for comment once a
specific project application is put in place.
DNR's reliance on ADF&G to protect fish doesn't ensure that DNR
is carrying out its legal responsibility to conserve the state's
resources. DNR protects only a fraction of the stream flow for
fish and other wildlife and navigation reasons.
4:51:27 PM
LINDA BEHNKEN, Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association, Sitka,
Alaska, opposed HB 77. She said they appreciate the committee's
work on HB 77, but was disappointed with the amendments that
fell far short of expectations. She thanked Senator McGuire for
her comments this week relative to the amendments.
She said this bill still does not define many terms such as
"adversely affected by a DNR decision," which significantly
raises the bar for Alaskans to comment or object to DNR
permitting decisions that affect important habitat and
waterways. The bill still vests DNR with expansive discretionary
powers to evaluate water use requests, both in terms of scope
with general permits and timing with renewal of temporary
permits, and the elimination of assigned application processing
priorities.
It also adds seven new issues that a DNR commissioner must
consider before deciding if an in-stream flow is in the public
interest, all couched in a tone suggesting that water simply
left in a lake or river is somehow being wasted. This concerns
the association and they hope the committee, too. She hoped the
committee would consider alternative strategies for addressing
the DNR permitting backlog.
4:53:39 PM
CLARK WHITNEY, JR., representing his children, Soldotna, Alaska,
opposed HB 77, because there is no need to further streamline
the permitting process in Alaska. Over the last 20 years it had
already been severely streamlined, and there were at least 25
other people in the Kenai LIO most of whom also opposed HB 77.
He said the rewrite of the bill was rushed on Monday and then
only 90 minutes were allotted to hundreds of Alaskans who care
deeply about Alaska to testify. He asked for more time for
testimony.
4:55:01 PM
MIKE SATRE, President, Council of Alaska Producers, Juneau,
Alaska, supported HB 77 and the CS. He said the Council had
supported HB 77 since its introduction and passage by the other
body. However, they understand the public concerns and don't
object to the current CS. They believe this bill strengthens
Alaskan's ability to participate in the public process during
permitting. Section 4 encourages involvement during the early
stages of the process when input and concern can most
practically be addressed.
He said general permits are used throughout the country by
federal and state agencies to regulate common activities that
are deemed to have minimal impact. The general permits
envisioned in section 1 will be subject to public review, but
once complete will be of great benefit to individuals and small
businesses who seek to do business on state land by simplifying
permitting while still maintaining rigorous standards for
protecting Alaskans.
Finally, he said, they wholeheartedly support the state agencies
holding in-stream water flow reservations, because the state is
constitutionally mandated to manage the water for the maximum
benefit of the people. Holding these reservations allows the
state to properly balance demands for water while ensuring flows
remain for the reserved purpose, including fish and wildlife
habitat.
4:57:16 PM
CEEZAR MARTINSON, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska,
opposed HB 77. He refers to it as "Let's Shred Our Constitution
Act." It is completely unnecessary. The permitting process in
the state already is good, he said. This bill houses power in
the executive branch, particularly in the hands of the
commissioner of DNR and takes away the ability of the public to
be engaged and involved in resource development issues. This
bill strengthens the ability of Outside foreign corporations in
terms of making decisions about our resources. We need to be
doing all that we can to strengthen the public process, not
restrict it. It's unfortunate they were not given more time
today to testify on this legislation given what it does.
4:59:15 PM
DOROTHY LARSON, Tribal Administrator, Curyung Tribal Council,
Dillingham, Alaska, opposed HB 77. She said she was born and
raised there and practiced hunting and fishing activities her
entire life and will continue to work diligently to assure there
are protections for this way of life into perpetuity. The
Curyung Tribal Council and over 40 Alaska tribes and Native
groups passed resolution opposing HB 77, and DNR's proposed
changes revealed less than 48 hours ago failed to address their
concerns. DNR has again worked behind closed doors without
public consultation and process to revise this dangerously
flawed bill.
5:01:34 PM
PENNY WESTING, representing herself, Palmer, Alaska, opposed HB
77 in any form. She is a registered voter and a homeowner with a
small stream on her property and a tribal citizen of Chickaloon
Native Village.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked LIO staff to count the hands of people
opposed and in support of HB 77 who had not yet spoken to the
committee and send those numbers to her office.
SENATOR FRENCH said he thought there were plenty of people who
are in favor of the bill who want to have their chance to be
heard, as well.
CHAIR GIESSEL said they would get their chance and closed oral
public testimony. She said anyone could send public testimony in
at any time to her office and those written comments will be
gladly taken and entered into the record. She had printed out
the ones from today and given them to all committee members.
[HB 77 was held in committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 77 vs H work draft CS (SRES).pdf |
SRES 3/12/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Responses from DNR 20140312.pdf |
SRES 3/12/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Comments and Resolutions from 2013 on Version Y.pdf |
SRES 3/12/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Opposition Documents with Index 03-12-2014 Group #1.pdf |
SRES 3/12/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Opposition Documents with Index 03-12-2014 Group #2.pdf |
SRES 3/12/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Support Documents with Index 03-12-2014.pdf |
SRES 3/12/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 77 |