Legislature(2013 - 2014)BUTROVICH 205
03/14/2014 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 | |
| *+ | SB 160 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| HB 135 | |||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 77-LAND USE/DISP/EXCHANGES; WATER RIGHTS
3:45:25 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL called the meeting back to order at 3:45 p.m.
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH joined the committee.
3:45:41 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 a new committee substitute (CS) had two changes: the
removal of Chikuminuk Lake hydro-electric project at the request
of Senators Hoffman and Stevens and Representative Edgmon who
represent the area where Chikuminuk Lake is located. In
addition, Senator McGuire removed her Chikuminuk Lake bill. An
additional section requires the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) to do some assessment of potential water reservations
needed on 12 rivers for the preservation of Chinook salmon.
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony and showed the email
testimonies she had received both for and against this
legislation that she received yesterday and today saying it was
approximately the same amount she had displayed on Wednesday and
that is was all going into the record.
CHAIR GIESSEL announced that she would enforce two-minute
testimony and would take the LIOs first and then go to the off
nets; she would take the names in order of signing up and would
move systematically around the state.
3:47:57 PM
SENATOR DYSON joined the committee.
SENATOR MCGUIRE joined the committee.
3:49:08 PM
SENATOR FRENCH joined the committee.
SENATOR DYSON moved to adopt 2d SCS CSHB 77(RES), version 28-GH
1524\D, as the working document.
CHAIR GIESSEL objected for discussion purposes.
3:49:57 PM
LINDSAY WILLIAMS, staff to Senator Giessel, Alaska State
Legislature, explained the changes in version D. She recapped
that the Y version passed out of Senate Finance last year and on
Monday this committee adopted version H.
In version H, old section 29 on page 28, line 30 - page 29, line
1, said the Chikuminuk Lake hydro-electric project was not
considered an incompatible use and that was removed from the
bill in version D and the following sections were renumbered.
This also required a title change.
3:50:55 PM
Section 47 was removed; that was found in version H on page 24,
lines 16-23. It contained language for the Woodtikchik State
Park Management Plan and regulation enforcement. Since this
section was removed, the following sections were renumbered
accordingly.
A new section on codified law was added to version D, section 46
on page 24, beginning on line 10, for a work plan for the
reservation of water in 12 important rivers and other waters to
sustain abundance and productivity of Chinook salmon. It directs
the DNR to work with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) to identify additional data gathering and resource
studies that are necessary to identify the amount of water to
conserve Chinook salmon in each river identified in this
section. The following sections were renumbered accordingly.
3:51:48 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the committee.
MS. WILLIAMS continued explaining that section 47 referenced
sections 34-44 of this act on page 25, line 9, and those were
renumbered since sections were removed and it now reads sections
34-44. It formerly read 35-45.
Also, section 50 on page 25, line 23, used to read: sections 29,
35-45, and 47-49; it now reads: sections 34-44 and 26-48; and
section 29 was removed in version D. Finally, section 51
referenced what was formerly section 52 and it is now called
section 51 and references section 50. She said those were all
the changes in version D.
3:53:47 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL said most of the changes in version D were
conforming and removed her objection; therefore, version D was
adopted. She began public testimony and asked people who were
objecting to the bill to reference the specific section they
objected to.
3:54:18 PM
THOMAS TILDEN, Tribal Chief, Curyung Tribe, Juneau, Alaska,
opposed HB 77. He said he was a commercial fisherman since 1965
and as well as a subsistence hunter/gatherer and fisherman. He
said DNR needs to be commended for their work on the backlog of
applicants: 1,600 in one year, but they need to be ashamed for
introducing HB 77 and the amendments before them. In HB 77 they
gave the public a "burnt cake" and the amendments covered the
burnt cake with frosting. The best action they could take is
throw this legislation in the trash can. It will take away
individual rights and destroy the state's abundant natural
resources. He said his tribe had submitted 11 water reservation
applications to DNR since 2007 that had seen no action.
Meanwhile, Northern Dynasty applied for 100 percent of the water
rights on the same river, Koktuli.
He said this bill lacks clarity, public input, and has created
an uproar across the state. It goes against the State
Constitution that says our resources shall be reserved for the
people for common use. This bill takes away from the people and
gives to foreign and outside interests. Definitions are needed
to clearly define the bill's intentions.
3:57:01 PM
SENATOR BISHOP joined the committee.
3:57:07 PM
TERRI PAULS, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed HB
77 saying it's an excessive expansion of corporate power that
takes away the rights of Alaskans to protect their natural
resources.
"Neither corporations nor state government are bad things, but
they both should be subservient to we the people...who own the
resources of the state," she said. HB 77 has it backwards
technically, allowing fast track approval by DNR of any activity
by industry. This bill prioritizes water rights for industry
while citizens' applications for in-stream water rights can be
tabled indefinitely.
Third, the bill takes away the legal standing of Alaska citizens
and hands it over to corporations. Under HB 77, she said she
couldn't challenge the decision about a greater part of Alaska
that she values unless she would personally suffer direct
financial or physical harm from that decision. Yet, a
corporation based anywhere on the planet proposing an Alaskan
project could challenge a decision if it affected their profit
margin.
She asked them: "Who do you really work for? Who do you
represent: the citizens of Alaska or industrial corporations?"
In a democracy, she said, the real flesh and blood people, not
the corporations are supposed to have the power. HB 77
dismantles democracy and that's why the committee should "chuck
the bill."
3:59:07 PM
JENNIFER HANLON, representing herself, Juneau, Alaska, said she
works as an environmental specialist at Tlingit Haida Council
and opposed HB 77 saying the changes didn't go far enough to
address the concerns that were brought up during the last
legislative session. It gives the DNR commissioner too much
power. Communities throughout the state need to have strong
influence over decisions that affect them directly, and this
bill strips away their basic right to be involved in these kinds
of decisions.
HB 77 looks out for corporate interests over community welfare,
and as elected officials they represent the people, not the
corporations.
4:00:53 PM
LORALI SIMON, Usibelli Coal Mine, Palmer, Alaska, said she is a
member of the Alaska Miners Association and a board member for
the Resource Development Council. She supported HB 77 saying it
encourages responsible development of state land and water
resources, and its passage is necessary to stop abuse of the
permitting process. She said that the people who opposed the
bill hadn't read it; most of the testimony on Wednesday was not
based on fact, but rather on irrational misrepresentations of
what is or is not in the bill.
This version of HB 77 doesn't take away the public's right to
participate and does not infringe upon subsistence activity or
human rights nor does it create an avenue to destroy fish
habitat. All development projects in Alaska have to go through a
very rigorous permitting process, which is a public process that
includes the public's input. There are opportunities throughout
the permitting process for groups, individuals, tribes, and
other organizations to engage in public comment periods. HB 77
does not change that.
The reason HB 77 has becomes such a popular target with the
anti-development activists, Ms. Simon said, is because they have
found a way to use the current water use system to impeded
development projects. Some activist groups even sent out an
action alert to their members telling them to oppose the pending
CS even before it had been released publicly.
Testimony on Wednesday claimed over and over that outside multi-
national mining and other industry companies have too much power
in the state. But don't forget that it isn't just Alaskan owned
and operated mining companies like Usibelli Coal Mine who hires
Alaskans. The state is fortunate to have large companies like BP
and ConocoPhillips to hire Alaskans to work on Alaskan projects.
4:03:18 PM
GLORIA SIMEON, President, Orutsararmiut Native Council,
representing the Native Village of Bethel, Alaska, opposed HB
77. She said this bill corrupts public participation and due
process and grants excessive power to the DNR commissioner and
opens the door for potential abuse of such power. A moratorium
on sales, leases, or other permitting of and rights to resource
development should be imposed immediately. Assessments of
current and ongoing environmental damage must be conducted and
include the impacts of climate change.
She said the state should develop consultation policies to meet
with those who are or will be substantially and adversely
affected by DNR permitting policies. They must seek sustainable
economic development opportunities that do not put our land and
waters at risk and avoid non-renewable resource development.
4:05:25 PM
CHARLIE POWERS, representing himself, Kodiak, Alaska, supported
HB 77. He said he is a board member of the Resource Development
Council, because it represents Alaska five core industries:
fisheries, oil, gas, mining, timber, and tourism. It is a
diversified voice that doesn't polarize one industry against
another. Without each of these industries and an efficient
project development process to support them, our state couldn't
survive, but with responsible development our state, its people
and wildlife can thrive.
He said thanks to special appropriations by the legislature, the
DNR is making positive progress on a tremendous permit
application backlog. Extra funding helps address the backlog's
symptoms, but efficient measures in HB 77 help address what
caused the backlog. HB 77 assures that Alaska's water resources
are managed by those who are best equipped to do so: agency
staff with science-based expertise. It diminishes the ability of
NGOs to abuse the system and stop projects.
MR. POWERS said he understood the concerns of those opposed to
HB 77; however he tries to look at the long term future where
there is a balance of financial prosperity and natural
abundance. As a democracy, we should also have faith in our
state's elected and hired public servants, more than NGOs and
other outside interest groups. Dependable permitting and timely
process is needed so businesses can develop business models that
are sustainable, both in terms of investment return and habitat
protection. Now special interest groups have too much power
through clogging up the permitting channel.
4:07:51 PM
MARK JOHNS, representing himself and the Native Village of
Kudaka, Glennallen, Alaska, opposed HB 77. It would silence the
voices of the tribes in natural resource matters and he felt
more time was needed for the public to become aware of the
decisions being made.
4:09:29 PM
JACK DEAN, representing himself, Kenai, Alaska, opposed HB 77.
He based his testimony on comments from Dillingham and the
reports they provided. He wanted to drive another nail into
Sections 29 and 47 of HB 77. He was concerned about the
Chikuminuk Lake hydro-electric project in Woodtikchik State Park
that would cost $507 million and would have to be heavily
subsidized. Woodtikchik State Park produces about 20 percent of
Bristol Bay's world class sockeye salmon fishing, he said, and
one of the primary purposes of HB 77 is to streamline "us pesky
citizens" right out of DNR's permitting process.
CHAIR GIESSEL interrupted him to state Chikuminuk Lake had been
removed from the bill. A new version is before them with two
changes and that is one of them. The second thing that has been
added is the requirement for DNR to do water reservation studies
on Chinook salmon bearing streams in the state. She invited him
to speak to the rest of the bill.
MR. DEAN continued that once the people have been sidelined the
primary purpose for HB 77 would kick in: DNR's fast track
permitting process for the Pebble and Chuitna Mines.
4:14:21 PM
JENNIFER GIBBINS, representing herself, Cordova, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. She is a small business owner and a member of the Cordova
Chamber of Commerce and thanked all citizens who had taken the
time and effort to participate in this process. She appreciated
the need to improve the permitting process, but HB 77 is flawed.
Ms. Gibbins said more discussion and public input was needed on
the following six points:
1. Section 1, general permits, HB 77 allows DNR to
pre-approve many kinds of activities, some good, but
also more serious activities that have the potential
to cause serious and irreparable harm.
2. "Significant or irreparable harm" is vague.
3. General permits can be issued without a specific
project before the agency. There is no requirement for
public notice or participation when someone later
submits an application under the permit.
4. The role of ADF&G is to permit projects, not to
ensure protection of habitat. A project that is
subject to a general permit could be approved by them
with no public process or notice.
5. HB 77 rolls back important advances to water law
and fails to ensure that the public in cooperation
with the resource agencies have a tool that could be
used to ensure that some water is reserved for fish.
6. Finally, DNR's changes to the administrative
appeals statute would limit its accountability for
decisions by removing public challenges.
4:16:40 PM
RAY FRIEDLANDER, Community Organizer, Sitka Conservation
Society, Sitka, Alaska, opposed HB 77. She said Sitka's LIO
currently has 11 or 12 citizens joining her in opposing HB 77
and the new amendments, and the Sitka Tribe of Alaska and 40
other tribes across the state submitted a resolution opposing HB
77 for its disregard for subsistence resources and subsistence
users. At the end of her comments all the people in the LIO
pledged together to "stand up and defend for the resources of
Alaska and for the twelfth player in the legislative game, the
people."
4:18:28 PM
OWEN GRAHAM, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association,
Sitka, Alaska, supported HB 77 saying it will allow the state to
manage its resource development permitting activities more
efficiently while still ensuring environmental protection
measures are maintained. These general permits will eliminate
unnecessary delays and staff time for both the state and
industry. He had used general permits for minor activities
before and they worked very well. They typically cover a narrow
range of activities and they specify the conditions that must be
met in order to qualify for coverage under that permit. Any
activity that does not meet all those conditions will go through
the longer and more intensive individual permit process.
HB 77 includes a requirement to limit appeals to only those
people who are substantially affected by an activity, a good
change, because Alaska is already a costly place to do business
without the added delays and costs of frivolous appeals. The
improvements in HB 77, intended to reduce the cost and delays
associated with state land disposals, will also help make Alaska
a friendlier place to do business as will the proposed change in
the management of water rights reservations.
4:20:06 PM
TINA TINKER, Environmental Department, Aleknagik Traditional
Council, Alaska, opposed HB 77. She said she is also a member of
the Nushigak Mulchatna Watershed Council. She participated in
collecting water quality samples from the inflow stream data
collection in 2005-2010 at the same time that the Pebble Mine
was doing its exploration. The data is now completed. At the
beginning of the project they saw salmon swimming up the Swan
River below Alkakak's (ph.) cabin in abundance. Once the project
was over there were very few fish in that river system. She
believed that Pebble taking water out of the river for
exploration had a detrimental effect on the fish and other land
mammals in that area.
MS. TINKER said that HB 77 doesn't protect the people of Alaska,
but undermines the local voices who are doing work to protect
the resources they depend on. They have had to find money to
conduct this work in partnership with Bristol Bay Native
Association and see HB 77 as a way to make changes without
consulting those who are directly affected by them. She asked
why DNR didn't come out and meet with them in Bristol Bay; they
have 11 water reservations on file. DNR should have discussed
their current applications before proposing any changes. They
were completed in good faith and following the rules and
guidelines established by the state, in some cases with the
encouragement of ADF&G. They shouldn't be punished for doing so.
4:22:22 PM
BARBARA KENNEDY, representing herself, Homer, Alaska, opposed HB
77. She said people in Homer turned out to testify against this
bill in the middle of a blizzard. She likened someone "borrowing
our resources" to her lending her chainsaw to someone without a
clear understanding that she would want it back sharpened and in
running order.
4:23:54 PM
JEFF FARVOUR, representing himself, Sitka, Alaska, opposed HB 77
and the new version. It would be bad for fishermen, habitat, and
Alaska. The authority given to the DNR commissioner to issue
general permits would allow him to supersede DNR's own laws and
statutes and that is an excessive overreaching of power.
Further, after a general permit is issued, subsequent activities
do not require any public notice. He wasn't sure if that was the
intent, but that is clearly what it does.
He was also concerned about a few other things they had already
heard a lot about: it does not define "likely significant" or
"irreparable harm," and is weak at best on "substantially and
adversely impacted."
MR. FARVOUR said even if "repairable" seems to be okay with some
people it usually has grave consequences for fish and habitat,
and generally applies to an activity that will leave a big
stinky mess; even if we think we can fix it we rarely can.
4:25:57 PM
PETER GUMLICKPUK, representing himself, New Stuyahok, Alaska,
opposed HB 77. He is a subsistence hunter and commercial
fisherman and opposed HB 77 because it takes away their rights
as Alaskans to make decisions that are important to them about
their land and water. A beloved elder had told them their
traditional way of life is priceless; they are already affected
in many ways that money won't solve. It won't replace any gifts
the land and water provide.
4:28:01 PM
JOESPH SEBASTIAN, representing himself, Kupreanof, Alaska,
opposed HB 77. He is a commercial fisherman and said there are
good reasons so many Alaskans took time from their busy lives to
speak against HB 77. He said the Alaskan public no longer trusts
Governor Parnell or his team of commissioners or rubber-stamping
majority. Only one way will regain the public's trust and that
is to start acting in a trust-worthy manner: uphold the rights
of the Alaskan public and protect the public good.
4:30:06 PM
NATASHA SINGH, Tanana Chiefs Conference, Fairbanks, Alaska,
opposed HB 77 and the new amendments. She said that earlier in
the week the Conference had held its annual meeting; their
delegates did their homework and read the amendments. The full
board decided that it was in their best interests to oppose HB
77 and the amendments and put it in a resolution.
As tribes, they have the responsibility to look out for their
tribal members' economic development, to provide jobs, and to
meet a balance of interests that comes with stewardship to the
land. They very much appreciated the amendment to reinsert
"tribe" into the definition of "person." They agree with former
comments about giving too much power to DNR, that some of the
legal terms need to be defined such as "likely to cause
significant irreparable harm," and the new standard that removes
the requirement that DNR act on water reservation applications
before asking about other water use applications, a diversion of
Alaska State water law.
4:32:28 PM
VINCE O'SHEA, Vice President, Pacific Seafood Processors
Association (PSPA), Juneau, Alaska, supported HB 77. He said his
member companies own and operate 22 seafood processing plants in
Alaska. They provide markets for thousands of fishermen and
produce food for millions of people.
He thanked them for the opportunity to speak in support of HB 77
and said he appreciated the work Senator Micciche and Mr. Fogels
had done to develop the changes reflected in the CS. Their
industry depends on the sustainable management of Alaskans
fisheries and protection of fish habitat.
MR. O'SHEA said the economic well-being of our state depends on
a vibrant and diverse economy and this bill provides the tools
to the DNR commissioner to sustainably manage natural resources
while allowing for an efficient regulatory process. It gives the
commissioner flexibility to dispense with low impact activities,
freeing up staff and other resources to thoroughly review those
projects having a greater potential to impact water use and fish
habitat. The bill does not diminish the authority, the ability,
or the voice of the commissioner of ADF&G to protect fish
habitat and provides reasonable opportunities for public
comment. It recognizes water as a public resource and correctly
places the custody of water reservation with public entities.
He said the PSPA supports responsible resource development and
recognizes the value of a thorough and timely oversight process
and the benefits that flow from the diverse and robust Alaskan
economy. This bill strikes a reasonable balance of those
concepts. It places confidence in the governor's and
commissioners' sworn commitment to properly manage the natural
resources of Alaska.
4:34:50 PM
GALINA VLADI, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. She said she is a traditional healer from Siberia whose
mission in life was to provide healing to people and to the
land. This bill brought back memories of her childhood where she
grew up in a fast growing industrial city. She remembered a
heavy yellow smoke every day and funerals. There were more
funerals than celebrations. She said Siberia was literally raped
for its resources. The Soviet people were deprived of the right
to have clean air, clean land and clean water. Now she is a
citizen of Alaska and did not want this to happen to the people
here.
4:37:18 PM
ROSE FOSDIK, Kawerak Incorporated, Nome, Alaska, said she was
submitting comments, but wanted another opportunity to provide
additional comment as they needed time to consider the new
version of HB 77 as they rely totally on their natural
resources.
4:39:30 PM
DAN GRAHAM, representing himself, Palmer, Alaska, supported HB
77. He said he has a 30-year mining career here and has
experience in permitting activities and he didn't see a single
place where public input was removed from large resource
development projects in this bill. The main concern seems to be
focused around general permits, which are a tool used to
efficiently process common activities.
He explained that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is in charge
of the water bodies and wetlands of the entire United States,
and they have a general permit that can be renewed every five
years that has over 20 activities listed that people can qualify
under. Applications are submitted - there is no public notice -
for activities you see every day and they are covered under that
general permit.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has general
permits for storm water. Construction sites with silt and
sediment fences are all issued under a general permit. Finally,
looking at preserving the state's budget, it's an efficiency
tool, that would allow the department to focus more attention on
the larger projects.
4:41:33 PM
BOB JOHNSON, representing himself, Kodiak, Alaska, opposed HB
77. He said he is a retired doctor and opposed it because a
number of lands could be disposed of or built upon without
public knowledge. It's very important for the public to have an
opportunity to enter a process that can affect them unfavorably
or in any way. Without a voice people become subject to
dictatorial decisions.
4:43:46 PM
PAULA HAMMELMAN, representing herself, Kenai, Alaska, opposed HB
77. She felt that water is our most precious resource and it
needs to be protected; she didn't want to see Alaska suffer the
pollution problems of the Lower 48. She didn't feel comfortable
having the DNR commissioner deciding how to use our resources,
especially water, without more public input. She didn't agree
with the general permitting process not requiring any public
notice after the initial public notice.
4:45:17 PM
KATE MORSE, Acting Executive Director, Copper River Watershed
Project, Cordova, Alaska, opposed HB 77. She said it would
create an exclusive process for decisions that have the
potential to affect large geographic areas. The language around
general permitting gives DNR power to issue general land use
permits for any activity over broad geographic areas and once
the permit is in place, the public will not be given notice
about specific activities authorized by the permit. Without
knowledge of specific activities, the public will not be able to
ensure protection of the resources, like clean water and healthy
salmon habitat that support their cultures, communities, and
economies.
MS. MORSE said there could be public health issues, as well,
that people will not be informed of, and that by excluding the
voice of the public, decisions will be made by people located
outside the region without drawing on the local knowledge and
experience of the people who have the most at stake in their
outcomes.
HB 77 states that only the public who have been significantly
and adversely affected can weigh in or challenge decisions and
it does not define what a "significant adverse effect" is. They
want to be assured that if a subsistence use would be affected,
Alaskans would have the right to speak up and challenge
decisions.
She said that HB 77 had been amended to allow tribes,
organizations, and people to apply for water reservations;
however, it is a lengthy and expensive process especially to try
to get the data required by the application process and there is
still no confirmation as to whether the application will be
reviewed or considered nor is there a requirement to honor a
timeline for responding to applicants. This doesn't allow for a
fair assessment of applications from the people who depend most
on the clean water and healthy subsistence resources.
4:47:36 PM
PAULETTE MORENO, representing herself, Sitka, Alaska, opposed HB
77. She reminded them of Alaska Native peoples' successful
stewardship of Alaska and its resources for tens of thousands of
years. She asked at what date and time did we give so much power
to so few. The amendment still gives DNR too much control. Even
though tribes are mentioned, the language is not strong enough
to promote equality to all and respect Alaska's ancestral voice
of responsible stewardship.
Several sections of the bill would still make it difficult to
challenge DNR decisions. As a member of Sitka Tribe of Alaska
(STA), she supported STA's opposition to the newly released
amendments.
4:50:10 PM
DANIEL CHYTHLOOK, representing himself, Aleknagik, Alaska,
opposed HB 77. He said his Yupik ancestors have constantly told
them about the importance of keeping the water resources clean,
because all the natural resources depend on it.
He said he was asked to conduct in-stream flow data collection
along with hydrology work on the lower reaches of the Koktuli
and Swan Rivers. The in-stream flow reservation is to be
conducted for a period of five years. They also tested the
waters for any presence of heavy metals for five months on an
annual basis. He worked with fish biologists, hydrologists, and
scientists to conduct anadromous salmon and fish water surveys
on the head waters of creeks and streams of the proposed Pebble
Mine to ensure the water quality is healthy along with the fish
species that migrate to these head waters on an annual basis to
spawn.
MR. CHYTHLOOK said the existing law for in-stream flow
reservations does not prevent development. The commissioner
already has the power to cancel or reduce an in-stream flow
reservation in favor of a subsequently filed water withdrawal
application. It is very likely that in those cases, a decision
will not be required as the water levels would be enough to
accommodate both needs. Yes, the in-stream flow reservation
could be a hindrance or a nuisance, but that is how it should
be. It provides a pause needed to fully appreciate how one
resource can affect another.
An in-stream flow reservation is not absolute under existing
law, he said; it does not block development. The real problem is
that DNR is underfunded or uninterested enough to address the
reservations in a timely and efficient manner and wants to
eliminate them altogether. HB 77 as currently written is worse
than the original existing law.
4:52:35 PM
SUE MAUGER, representing herself, Homer, Alaska, opposed HB 77
and the current CS. In its' original form, HB 77 was an example
of DNR overreach to such an astonishing degree that hundreds of
people felt compelled to let them know it was not okay. The
th
changes in the March 10 version addressed few of the critical
concerns brought to light in public meetings and are not enough
to make this a balanced bill.
Many comments focused on the Section 1 "notwithstanding"
language and proposed changes to the in-stream flow reservation
application process in the original bill. Distracted by those
changes, they let other sections slide by in the first round,
like section 43, which already gives the DNR commissioner
authority to give away "a significant amount of water" for five
years with no public notice, and he can do it over and over
again for the same project under a so-called temporary use.
Meanwhile the power-grabbing language objected to in the first
round in Section 1 has been slipped into the in-stream flow
application process in section 42(h), which gives the
commissioner full discretion to determine when and in what order
any application for reservation of water is processed. This is
not a compromise, and arguing that general permits are used
across the country as a reason to use them just made her laugh.
4:54:54 PM
EDWARD ALEXANDER, Second Chief, Fort Yukon's 1,400 Tribal
members, Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in, Fairbanks, Alaska, opposed HB
77. He said they are at the conjunction of the two largest water
sheds in the State of Alaska, the Yukon River and the Porcupine
River, and they are the oldest English speaking community in the
state. They are very aware of their history and are alarmed by
the threat to water resources in HB 77. It has no tribal
consultation and so many negative effects are possible that they
don't need to list them.
He said his people live a natural way of life; hunting and
gathering is how most of them subsist. It violates both
democratic principles of public participation and republican
principles of small local governance. HB 77 gives too much power
to the DNR at a cost to the public. They are opposed to it on
the grounds of its general permitting changes, vague language
for "significant and irreparable harm," limitations to legal
rights, changes to water reservations, and making it harder for
tribal members to participate in the public process. The 43
Tribes of the Interior have passed a resolution opposing HB 77.
4:57:17 PM
DEANTHA CROCKETT, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association,
Anchorage, Alaska, supported HB 77. She said it's clear that
many people did not read this bill and assumed it does many
things that it does not do.
Since last Wednesday's meeting, she said she had received many
emails from placer miners, small business owners, large
operators, and other sectors urging support of this bill. The
Alaska Miners Association members who rely of facts and science
to permit their operations are excited about the improvements
including the issuance of general permits, so that minor
projects can be permitted practically. Section 1 clearly states
there is the requirement for public notice and provides
opportunities for public input on any general permit. She said
these activities are already authorized for permit under
existing statute and are not unprecedented. In fact, they are
used by federal agencies all the time.
The requirement that appeals can be done only by those who are
directly and negatively impacted by the decision is one they are
pleased with, because it bring accountability to the appeals
process and ensures that appeals are brought only when it
directly involves people adversely affected by a decision rather
than special interests attempting to block permits.
Critically, HB 77 assures that Alaska's water resources are
managed by those who are best equipped to do so, the science-
based expertise of our state resource agencies. She called
attention to the document in their packet they put together with
the Resource Development Council (RDC) to specifically outline
why management of water resources is so critical. Water
reservations are being used to stop, block and certainly delay
projects, particularly in her industry, but in the oil and gas
and utility sectors as well. Water should be managed by state
agencies with the expertise and capability to most effectively
manage Alaska's water bodies. She commended the Parnell
Administration for the CS version of HB 77 and think it's best
for our economy.
4:59:56 PM
LIZA WADE, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed HB
77. She said she is Ahtna/Athabaskan and is a property owner in
the Matsu Borough and is a health director and council member
for Chickaloon Village Judicial Council. Her tribe is one of 42
tribes and villages who oppose HB 77 by resolution and all of
them should be included as part of the public record. Her tribe
also has a pending water rights application on file for which
they have invested great time and expense in order to protect
critical salmon habitat in their traditional territory.
She noted that right now, President Busman of Tyonek had been
turned away from testifying today and he was also planning on
testifying about the many problems that still remain in the
amended version of HB 77. However, all the flaws have been
adequately described by now and she agreed with all the people
who had testified very eloquently on the numerous problems with
this bill.
5:01:27 PM
ANDRE CIOSTEK, representing himself, Palmer, Alaska, opposed HB
77 and its revision. He said, "What started as a simple
administrative problem at DNR led by former DNR commissioner,
Dan Sullivan, was used by Governor Parnell as a spring board and
an excuse to launch this fraudulent HB 77." He said his comments
in general were addressed very eloquently by previous speakers.
It would put additional and unnecessary burden on Alaskans.
Water is a precious resource and can't be traded for so-called
development at any cost. Local government, tribes, and citizens
must have unabated rights for deciding in-stream reservation to
protect wild fish for recreation and other uses. Collectively
they make better decisions that serve the best interests of
Alaskans.
Revised HB 77 is still fraudulent by taking rights away and
giving broad powers to the politicians appointed by the
governor. This is dangerous and unacceptable.
5:04:14 PM
PENNY VADLA, representing herself, Soldotna, Alaska, opposed HB
77. She said she is not an anti-development activist but a
concerned citizen. She said the revision of HB 77 weakens the
current regulations and it had not been vetted properly. This
bill makes it difficult to litigate any permit decisions and
limits a person who has aggrieved to file an appeal. It gives
too much authority to the DNR commissioner and allows
corporation to obtain general permits for a wide range of
activities over broad geographical areas.
Some permits are okay; for example a fisherman would be able to
acquire a general permit for multiple mooring buoys. But this
permit for a fisherman differs considerably from general permits
granted to corporations. Corporation permits have the potential
for far-reaching negative impacts while not having strong
regulation. Public notice is not even required after a general
permit is issued.
She was happy that Alaskans can apply for water reservations,
because they protect a fraction of a stream for the flow of
fish. This bill also allows corporations to obtain water rights
and to buy and sell those rights once the developer no longer
needs the water right.
MS. VADLA said she is for responsible development and couldn't
figure out what "irreparable and significant harm" really is.
She was for compromise and for the inclusion, involvement and
consideration of all stakeholders in the process and for
transparency and honesty.
5:06:50 PM
MARY ANNE BISHOP, President, Prince William Sound Audubon
Society, Cordova, Alaska, opposed HB 77. It is poorly written
and undermines the public process. The public should be notified
and allowed to review and comment on permit applications before
permits are issued and no one should have to prove that they
would personally be significantly adversely affected in order to
weigh in or challenge any decision.
5:07:57 PM
LORRAINE INEZ LIL, representing herself, Sitka, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. She said she had lived in Alaska for over 25 years and
was stunned when she read the bill. "How can we revert back to
dirty water from mining with or without any public comment?" she
asked. She attended a lecture a few nights ago by Bob Loefler,
former director of the Division of Land, Mining and Water, who
stated the most important thing is water. She was so impressed
with Alaska and the methods that gave them clean water from the
mining industry. This bill would revert us back to not caring
about water and it also permits DNR to give away or sell state
land for unsecured future benefits in aquatic farming without
public comment. This bill does everything that Alaskans do not
want.
5:09:03 PM
BILLY MAINES, Tribal Environmental Coordinator, Curyung Tribal
Council, Dillingham, Alaska, opposed HB 77. He spoke about the
lack of importance place on in-stream flow reservations and
federally recognized tribes. Someone was kind enough to admit
that maybe the tribes in Alaska should be considered Alaskan
residents, but at the same time take away that right when it
comes to in-stream flow reservations. It's okay for any Alaskan
to go out and do the field work, pay for it to be done, and file
the application, spending an additional $1500 with it, and just
maybe some time in the future have the commissioner or the staff
adjudicate that reservation. But it won't be the tribe's or any
Alaskans; it's got to be somebody in the in the state that will
take ownership of that in-stream flow reservation. There is
something wrong with that philosophy when people are trying to
help the state to catalogue and categorize all its water
resources.
5:11:27 PM
BOB SHAVELSON, representing himself and Cook Inletkeeper, Homer,
Alaska, opposed HB 77. He thanked Senator Micciche and Senator
McGuire for their leadership on this important legislation.
For the last 19 years or so he had a front row seat for some of
the largest project permitting issues around the state, and they
routinely hear from government corporation officials that Alaska
has a rigorous permitting system. While the notion of rigorous
permitting is a relative term, he can say from his direct
experience that, "We are repeating the very same mistakes that
led to the demise of wild fish everywhere else on the planet."
HB 77 is an extension and an acceleration of that process. For
example, the revised bill still allows so-called temporary water
uses to go on indefinitely. These are significant withdrawals of
water around our drinking water supplies and fish habitat day in
and day out if they routinely get rubber-stamped by overworked
agency personnel, and the public is kept in the dark because
there is no public notice.
Furthermore, the water reservation section has drawn a lot of
attention and rightly so, because it completely unravels our
current program for keeping water in local lakes and streams and
gives the state the unfettered discretion to ignore water
reservation applications virtually forever. Because the state
devotes fewer resources to processing water reservations, HB 77
will ensure out-of-stream diversions take precedence over in-
stream flows. Together, these two provisions turn Alaska water
law on its head and makes it easy for large corporations to take
water out of our streams and hard for local Alaskans to keep it
there to protect salmon and other uses. A proper balance,
regardless of who actually owns the water reservation would
always ensure Alaska's water bodies have enough water to support
fish and other uses and put the burden on the appropriator to
show that they will not harm those uses.
He said if there is any desire to truly strike a compromise
among the interests here, a good start would be to amend the
Water law provisions in the bill and put everyday Alaskans back
into a meaningful role in water use and reservations decisions.
5:13:48 PM
MARY SHIELDS, representing herself, Fairbanks, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. She is a dog musher and works in tourism. She said
Fairbanks was incorporated in 1903 when gold was discovered
there. This was her home and she cares about the land and all
living things that share it. "Why would she give up her voice to
help decide the future of this place?" she asked. Why would she
pass this responsibility onto a handful of bureaucrats, some
qualified but others just political appointees? Why do the
authors of this bill have their ear muffs on? They should take
them off and listen to what Alaskans are saying. They belong to
Alaska and Alaska belongs to them. They value their role as
citizens and want a state government that is more transparent
not more secretive.
5:15:44 PM
LISA WAX, representing herself, Copper River, Alaska, opposed HB
77. She owns the Tsania Lodge outside of Valdez, the world's
indisputable ski mecca. The beauty is unsurpassed, but the very
entity entrusted with managing this unsurpassed beauty is in
fact compromising its integrity and future viability.
She said the DNR has failed for decades to comply with its
guiding doctrine. In 2007, DNR Commissioner Irwin wrote the
Copper River Basin area plan adopted in 1986 that describes how
DNR will manage the state land in the Copper River Basin
including the Thompson Pass area. The relevant management
guideline says that all development along the Richardson Highway
corridor should be cited and designed to minimize impacts in
views from the highway. He promised removal of some commercial
structures and wrote that all structures would be wood-sided
with brown roofs. Seven years later the permits have been
abandoned and the Connex remains in the foreground of the Copper
River Basin and Prince Williams Sound's most visited site, the
Worthington Glacier.
Another abandoned permit is referred to as "The Super Fund." At
least three new "roadside junk shows" - trailers, porta-potties,
snow cats, and helicopters - have been permitted this season and
public access closed to the most historic back country route.
Across the street and down the road two more trailer sites -
snow cats, heli's - have been granted to another operator
already out of compliance with a third site. The junk shows have
been authorized for 7-8 months on five year permits with only
10-30 user days annually. Permit application numbers indicate
that one tour bus will be more impacted by the eyesore than the
total number of the permittees' annual clients. Public notice
was not provided for any of the aforementioned permits, not even
to those on the list. She concluded by saying that DNR's
habitual negligence clearly indicates a need for more oversight
not less. Failure should not be rewarded with the issuance of
unlimited power, she stated.
5:17:59 PM
CARLY WIER, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed HB
77. As a consumer of the public process and watching out for
decisions that affect her way of life in Alaska, she said that
it is very challenging to learn the information that they need
to be informed. She suggested that one way to go back and create
a process that fixes the permitting backlog and the small
permits that some of the folks have talked about would be to
reopen a dialogue that lets all of them have better access to
information.
Their voices are not being adequately heard now; hearing an
amended bill two days before there is public testimony and then
when she got there she heard there was another version. That's
not fair and is a process not worthy of Alaska and its
resources.
5:20:18 PM
ALICE CIOSTEK, representing herself, Palmer, Alaska, opposed HB
77. As revised it is still broken. As Alaskans they demand that
elected officials represent the people of Alaska. The revision
does not give voice to the Tribes and other residents who are
the eyes and ears of this state and subsist on what it has to
offer for all's survival.
The Tribes and other local governments are being restricted from
this flawed legislation that wants to give ADF&G a certificate
of water reservation and where DNR no longer needs to prioritize
their applications or even make a decision on them.
Another of her concerns was the subjective wording, terms such
as: "substantially and adversely affects" or "unlikely results
in significant and irreparable harm." She was born, raised, and
educated and plans to die in Alaska and what significantly and
adversely affects her quality of life and peace of mind is not
being considered, but rather this legislation is fast tracking a
permitting process for corporations and companies to make a
quick buck.
5:22:27 PM
DANIEL LYNCH, representing mankind and future generations,
Soldotna, Alaska, opposed HB 77. It removes the people's voice
on water rights and gives it to a handful of deciders: the
governor and a few commissioners who serve at the whim of the
governor, some that have a short shelf life before becoming
lobbyists or corporate shills. Don't rush destruction of
democracy and combine the three branches of government into one,
he urged. More time is needed to balance and fine tune this
issue.
5:24:16 PM
GERALD MASOLINI, representing himself, Cordova, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. He was a 49-year resident of Cordova and had been a
fisherman and processor most of those years. In the beginning
Cordova was a mining town with not only the Kennecott Mine at
the head of the Copper River, but with many small mines spread
around the Sound. After seeing the huge threat the Pebble Mine
poses to the salmon of Bristol Bay he is now very protective of
his rights to speak up loudly if a Pebble Mine situation ever
looms again anywhere, especially in the Cordova area.
5:25:09 PM
JOEL HANSON, representing himself, Sitka, Alaska, opposed HB 77.
He is a 35-year resident of Alaska and emphasized that this
legislation is hostile to a citizen's ability to legally
challenge DNR's decisions unless they are "significantly,
adversely affected." He thought it would do the opposite of
streamlining the process.
MR. HANSON said he had been an active participant in many of the
land management decisions the U.S. Forest Service had made on
the Tongass over the years and one of the dumbest strategic
moves he had seen them make was when they changed their rules
governing public process by shortening the time period for
public comment and tightened up their qualifications for legal
standing. Ever since they made that move, every single timber
sale has been first administratively challenged and then legally
challenged.
He said the same thing will happen here when the DNR moves to
establish general permits. DNR has historically been free of
this kind of focused opposition, but that won't be the case if
this bill passes. He suggested calling someone at Earth Justice
(or the Natural Resources Defense Council, or the Center for
Biological Diversity, or Greenpeace of Cascadia Wildlands) and
see if they aren't both willing and capable of directing their
legal expertise in DNR's direction if really bad land use
projects start occurring as a result of this legislation. The
harder the state makes it for average Alaskans to have a say in
land use decisions, the more they will look to have their voices
heard in other ways.
5:27:36 PM
GARY CLINE, representing himself, Dillingham, Alaska, opposed HB
77. He is a life-long Bristol Bay resident, commercial
fisherman, and subsistence harvester and said this was an
"atrocious bill." He asked why they would pass something that
gives more authority to DNR and provides less input or power for
Alaskans in the decision-making process regarding their land and
water rights. He'd already seen how DNR could operate behind the
backs of the people when going through their best interest
findings to assess what is best for the State of Alaska during
the revision of the Bristol Bay area plan where DNR stripped
away over 90 percent of the land that used to be classified as
habitat without adequately consulting the people or Tribes,
which resulted in a lawsuit. He has no trust in DNR when they
are going through this process.
5:29:11 PM
SUE CHRISTIANSEN, representing herself, Homer, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. She said she understood the challenge DNR had with the
backlog of permits and appreciated the time Senator Micciche and
Senator McGuire put into these amendments, but HB 77 still is
not the answer they need. It still doesn't address the major
problems. Expanding DNR power, eroding Alaskans rights to appeal
DNR decisions, and eviscerating the process for water
reservations remain largely unchanged and unfixed. A bill needs
to be crafted that empowers the people of Alaska; she was
positive that solutions were there somewhere.
5:31:13 PM
KARL GOHLKE, Frontier Supply Co., Fairbanks, Alaska, supported
HB 77. He remained supportive of all provisions in the new bill,
which encourages public input and makes the permitting process
more effective, efficient, and predictable. The bill is simply a
permitting efficiency measure which the state had been working
on since 2011. These efforts included outreach to stakeholders
across the state and ultimately resulted in legislation that
allowed the agencies to implement changes to make permitting in
Alaska more efficient and timely while maintaining their mission
of protecting the environment.
MR. GOHLKE said HB 77 implements changes that will provide
certainty and timely responses to Alaskans that obtain permits
while maintaining efficiently run state agencies. Thanks to the
special appropriations by the legislature, the DNR is making
positive progress on the substantial permit application backlog.
The funding has reduced the backlog, but efficiency measures in
HB 77 help address the cause of the backlogs in moving forward.
5:33:34 PM
JUDY HILLMAN, Chuitna Citizens Coalition, Beluga, Alaska,
opposed HB 77. She said they are a group of Alaskan property
owners, hunters, and fishermen who were concerned about
protecting salmon habitat in the vicinity of the proposed
Chuitna Coal strip mine in the Upper Cook Inlet. This mine would
set a dangerous precedent for every fish stream in Alaska,
because it would be the first permit issued by the state to
allow mining completely through 25 miles of wild salmon streams.
She said her group is uniquely affected by this legislation,
because it will essentially allow DNR to ignore their
application to reserve water for salmon in the tributaries of
the Chuitna River called Middle Creek. They think it's wrong to
mine through salmon streams.
She said the DNR took over $4,500 from them in application fees,
but refused to act on their request. The state also refused to
act on a similar water reservation on the main stem of the
Chuitna filed by the state's own Fish and Game Habitat
biologists in 1996. In the meantime, it issued permits to the
coal company to take water from the same stream for exploratory
work. Because DNR would not process their application, they were
forced to ask a court to decide and it found the state violated
their constitutional rights by failing to process their water
reservations. Now the coal company has submitted a water right
application to take 100 percent of Middle Creek so it can mine
down 350 ft. or more through the salmon habitat.
5:36:27 PM
HANNA CARVER, representing herself, Juneau, AK, opposed HB 77.
She said she is a biology student at UAS and wanted to add her
voice to the many articulate ones they had heard in opposition
to this bill, because it stifles public process and tramples on
the rights of Alaskans in obvious favor of corporate interests.
The changes do nothing to address the primary concerns.
She said the use of a public resource should be overseen and
approved by the people who constitute that public. Closing the
door to them is opening the door for unchecked private
interests. In addition, the burden of proof should not be on
citizens to prove that they are being significantly hurt. The
burden of proof must be on projects and companies to prove they
are not doing significant harm. This bill sets a dangerous
precedent for Alaska, a precedent of poor environmental
stewardship and a disregard for public opinion.
5:37:32 PM
KELSI SVENSON, representing the 650 UAA students who signed a
petition against HB 77, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed HB 77. She
thanked Senator Micciche and Senator McGuire for their work on
the bill. She said they have a right to protect their non-
renewable resources and traditional ways of subsisting; they
have a right to protect clean water and the many animals,
ourselves included, that depend on healthy habitats.
In addition, she said, unrestricted non-renewable resource
extraction is directly related to climate change and it is
becoming increasingly clear that it is real and already
affecting every Alaska citizen. HB 77 is another example of
extraction corporations choosing profit over life, and the
government is acting as their enabler.
5:39:49 PM
JESSICA WINSTAFFER, representing herself, Sutton, Alaska,
opposed HB 77 and all of its versions. She took a moment of
silence saying afterwards that the silence could be the result
of no running water in Alaska's streams and rivers. She said the
silence could be the result of no opportunity for Alaskans to
speak about DNR permits, to protect their homes, their natural
resources, and the health of their families, fish and wildlife.
MS. WINSTAFFER said she had personally worked to get an in-
stream flow reservation for the last eight years and it is an
expensive, time consuming and technical undertaking. It has been
with collaboration from federal, state, and private funding
sources.
Reserving in-stream flows is one approach that can be used to
ensure that critical salmon habitats remain available to help
salmon populations adapt to climate changes and to hopefully
help restore several salmon stocks of concern. HB 77 eliminates
much of her efforts to protect and enhance salmon for all
Alaskans.
5:42:11 PM
CATHERINE CASSIDY, representing herself, Kasilof, Alaska,
continued to oppose HB 77 in its amended form for the same
specific reasons the committee had heard many times now, like
the section 4 appeal criteria, the subjective terms like
"significant or irreparable harm," and the further undermining
of the water reservation application process.
She said Senator Micciche's amendment in Section 46 to reserve
water in certain rivers was a positive addition in the bill, but
it should have included the Chuitna River in that it illustrates
a greater problem: many who are opposed to HB 77 depend on
salmon for their livelihoods and sustenance. Since the State of
Alaska has still not created automatic in-stream flow provisions
for all salmon streams, the permitting process and in-stream
reservations are the only tools available to Alaskans to
preserve the salmon stocks and to prevent the slow chipping away
of vital salmon habitat.
5:43:27 PM
LAUREN PADAWAR, representing herself, Cordova, Alaska, opposed
HB 77 and all of its versions and amendments saying she was a
fisherman and small business owner with a federal mining permit
and is a member of Cordova District Fishermen United and the
Cordova Chamber of Commerce and that HB 77 is an erosion of the
public process; it's bad for fish, bad for the environment, and
bad for Alaskans.
5:44:38 PM
ANDY SCORZELLI, representing himself, Sitka, Alaska, opposed HB
77. He said he is a commercial fisherman and perceives this bill
as a direct attack on the democratic process.
5:45:04 PM
COURTENAY GOMEZ, Director, Natural Resources, Bristol Bay Native
Association (BBNA), Dillingham, Alaska, opposed HB 77. The
Association has been fighting HB 77 and the processes used by
Nuvista and the 28th Legislature regarding the Chikuminuk
project thus far. BBNA resolutions 2013-04,05 and 2013-15,16
have been submitted to the committee to be included in the
record. She thanked Senator McGuire for removing the Chikuminuk
language and subsequent SB 32.
She said the CS for HB 77 presented on Monday does provide some
clarifying language to the original version of HB 77, however it
still does not adequately allow for Alaskans to be involved in
making natural resource management decisions.
In regards to the 32 current applications on file, today's CS
does allow for those to be processed by the effective date,
although they could still be denied.
MS. GOMEZ said it's important to amend the work plan for the
reservation of the 12 important rivers protecting the
productivity of Chinook salmon to include upriver streams,
tributaries and headwaters that flow into these main stem
rivers, as those are essential spawning and rearing habitats.
She urged them to include all salmon rivers within the State of
Alaska asking why they should just focus on Chinook, especially
since ADF&G has already been tasked with Chinook protection.
5:47:35 PM
MIKE BYERLY, representing himself, Homer, Alaska, opposed HB 77.
He said some improvements had been made to the last version of
the bill, but the essence of it remains. And while
"notwithstanding" in section 1 was removed and "a person and
tribes" have been retained as someone who could apply for in-
stream flow reservations, which were positive, but DNR still has
too much power for issuing general permits and there is still
plenty wrong with the bill as a whole. "Substantially and
adversely affected" is still used throughout the bill.
He said, "We're all Alaskans and we all should retain the
ability and the right to appeal or request reconsideration on
permitting actions." For those who can actually make one, the
appeal periods are still way too short and the commissioner
still retains the ability to extend leases at his discretion in
multiple sections, still retains the discretion to make public
decisions that have been made by the department and to make
public comment periods available on pending decisions.
In section 35 the department retains the ability to determine
what a significant amount of water is when determining removals
from one hydrologic unit to another. Prior language was that it
just couldn't be done unless defined conditions were met, like
enough water for salmon production. The commissioner retains the
ability to issue one or more temporary water use authorizations,
which is open-ended allowing the ability to perpetually issue
authorizations with no real oversight.
5:50:04 PM
PETE J. PETER, Venetie Tribe, Fairbanks, Alaska, opposed HB 77.
He said he served in the military for many years and retired
here and he really cares about the resource and subsistence
rights for our veterans and the children back home. HB 77 is
actually based on greed. It's not looking at subsistence rights
in the future. Alaska needs to be kept as the Last Frontier.
5:52:36 PM
BRANDY PREFONTAINE, representing herself, Prince of Wales,
Alaska, opposed HB 77. She asked them to listen closely, to
delay and revise this bill so they can consider the comments
that are being made by the public. She was raised on subsistence
and water is needed for everything about it; this bill directly
impacts their rights in that respect.
5:55:11 PM
MADELAINE RAFFERTY, representing herself, Fairbanks, Alaska,
opposed HB 77. She said her objections to HB 77 have largely
been articulated in the many previous testimonies, but she
wanted most to emphasize that the amendments were a completely
inadequate response to the flood of opposition it has received.
Alaskans have been kept in the dark about changes to the bill
that had been 10 months in the making.
5:56:16 PM
LIZ ALLARD, representing herself, Palmer, Alaska, opposed HB 77.
She opposed it because it serves the elite while silencing the
majority. She commended attempts to amend the bill, "but with no
due respect, no amount of duct tape in Wasilla can fix this
broken bill." In Palmer, over 80 people turned out to their
public forum on this issue and nearly 40 people testified
against it; none in favor. Her message was simple: "We as
Alaskans are engaged; we are informed and will not be silenced."
5:57:51 PM
BRUCE JORDAN, representing himself, Matsu, Alaska, opposed HB
77. He said his story might be a little different than some in
that they retired from Oregon and moved north - for the best of
all reasons: their two children and grandchildren live here. One
of them has lung issues that are susceptible to any particulates
in the air, which makes the winds in Palmer very challenging
when they visit. He said they see themselves as stewards of
their lives as well as stewards of their adopted state doing
whatever they can to help Alaska stay that magical place that
all of its residents and many visitors find when they explore
its beauty. Allowing our state's DNR to operate with little
public oversight on resource extraction could cause great harm
to the land, the fish, and animals and especially the people who
call Alaska home. He urged them to retain public oversight in
any bill they pass and discard the current version of HB 77.
6:00:00 PM
ERIK HUEBSCH, Vice President, United Cook Inlet Drift
Association (UCIDA), Kasilof, Alaska, opposed HB 77. They do not
think adequate time has been given for the evaluation of the
amended bill and have concerns regarding actual language versus
the intent of the bill. Further amendments are necessary to
protect fish habitat and the rights of citizens in their efforts
to protect it.
6:01:47 PM
JOHN MURRAY, representing himself, Sitka, Alaska, opposed HB 77.
He found section 39, line 19 (b) suspect in the way it's
written. He suggested using new language such as: "the effect on
economic activities from not having the proposed reservation."
He disagreed with language in section 42, lines 29-31, that
talks about a significant amount of water with a temporary use
permit being issued one or more times. This open-ended language
could lead to abuse. Also he didn't see language saying a person
could appeal that.
The reason given for the state's need to hold a water
reservation was because companies, non-governmental agencies,
organizations, and individuals don't always stick around and
this would ensure the reservations persist, and he found that a
very weak rationale. This section needs to be debated fully and
if DNR can't come up with solid reasons, the person should be
able to hold the water reservation.
Language in section 14, lines 26-27(b) doesn't work out for
seasonal harvesters, because it provides 20 days after issuance
of a termination. A lot of people work in the summer; he has his
head down catching salmon, trying to make a living and doesn't
have time. Some language needs to be put in to address that.
6:04:13 PM
CODY LARSON, representing himself, Dillingham, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. He said that amendments to this bill happened quickly.
The DNR backlog could be because of bills like this; pending
water permits create a large backlog.
Section 46(d) says nothing in this section prevents or may be
construed to prevent the DNR from authorizing other uses of the
water in rivers identified in parts (a) and (b), which is a work
plan. So, that language "is kind of just trumping the first (a)
and (b)," so if you look at (d), it seems similar to the
commissioner's over reach in the original bill. He said if they
continue to promote this bill for the Parnell Administration, it
will just wound them, because people will lose confidence in
them.
6:06:16 PM
RICHARD GUSTAFSON, representing himself, Homer, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. He appreciated all the work they had done, but they
hadn't done enough to solve the problems with it. He would look
it over and try to give them more specific examples, but overall
HB 77 has eroded the public trust in the Administration and
Legislature. Please reject this bill, he said. One possible way
to help get the trust back would be to reinstate the Coastal
Zone Management Program (CZMP) that was gutted so the Parnell
administration could go carte blanc for development.
6:07:28 PM
LANCE ROBERTS, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska,
supported HB 77. He said he has a lot of relatives in the mining
industry, which has been in Alaska for hundreds of years and
they have "done just fine." But it's extremely hard for small
miners to get things done because of the onerous permitting
process. A miner used to be able to go in and get a permit for
a couple bucks in an hour, but now it takes 34 permits and a lot
of time and money. He said a lot of testifiers have been talking
about corporations, but there are lots of small, individual
miners and other people who do permits who would be affected by
this. He said the state really needs a general permit process.
6:09:36 PM
BECKY LONG, representing herself, Bald Mountain, Alaska, was
concerned about one section in HB 77. It says a person can take
up to five gallons of water a day out of a hydrologic unit
without a water right or permit. She opposed that as being too
high. She explained that her family has had water rights on a
small anadromous creek for 30 years and if a few entities above
them each took that much water out, her water rights, which is a
property right, would be impaired. This needs to be cleared up.
She saw no reason for this bill and, further, DRN had cut its
backlog of permits and there is no evidence that standing on
appeals has been abused. If there are any frivolous appeals, the
DNR commissioner can automatically just sit on it or the
judicial system could throw it out.
She noted that the general permit language in the bill was not
clear and will guarantee that future land use conflicts will
happen and that constituents will have to come to the
legislature to deal with them; ultimately those disputes would
start clogging the courts.
6:11:52 PM
DICK COOSE, representing himself, Ketchikan, Alaska, supported
HB 77. He said he is a retired federal forester of about 40
years. This is a positive bill that DNR can move forward with in
a more efficient manner. They are charged to do the best they
can to protect and manage the resources. As a retired forester
he had heard most of these stories before; it's emotional and
wrong. He said move forward with it and tweak it later on if
that is needed.
6:13:30 PM
MERRILL LAKE, representing himself and family, Chevak, Alaska,
opposed HB 77. However he thanked Senator Micciche and Senator
McGuire for making the most recent changes. He grew up seeing
salmon not as a delicacy but as a way of survival throughout the
harsh and expensive winters in Bush Alaska. He explained how
they live a subsistence lifestyle that includes providing for
the extended family and how at 23 years old he could remember
suffering due to lack of common shelf items. By trying to
suppress their voice in how this land is treated they are
telling them their way of life is not worth protecting.
6:16:09 PM
GARVIN BUCARIA, representing himself, Wasilla, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. He said it's unlikely he could afford the bonding costs
should he desire a legitimate appeal. He stated that the Kobuk
River and its tributaries, particularly the Ambler, need
protection for its Sheefish. In 1968, he obtained mineral
samples from the Kennecott Corporation geologists working near
the village of Kobuk. Values from large ore bodies are clear,
but there is a price. Acid mine drainage and heavy metal
contamination are dangers in these areas where mines are because
of the rainfall. When active mining occurs pollution control is
more likely; post mining history is less sure. Responsible
parties just disappear and then the people pick up the tab.
6:18:35 PM
KAITLIN VADLA, representing herself, Soldotna, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. She said she fishes and hunts and loves Alaska; she votes
for both Democrats and Republicans. She thanked everyone for
their work on HB 77 that was an attempt to improve the
permitting system, but she opposed the current version, because
it still needs lots of improvements.
She said that water reservations are supposed to be a tool for
agencies and individuals to use to protect water bodies for
habitat, transportation, and recreation, but DNR has not
actually processed any water reservations filed by individuals.
So, this tool doesn't actually work and HB 77 makes it less
workable not better.
One solution would be to create an automatic reservation
codified into reserving some water, like 60 percent in the
summer and 40 percent in the winter, in all water bodies for
habitat, transportation, and recreation. The burden shouldn't
fall on individuals and agencies to reserve water on a one by
one basis for each stream, river, and lake in Alaska. With an
automatic reservation, amounts to be determined by expert state
biologists and hydrologists, the burden of processing individual
applications for water reservations would go away. DNR would
then be free to concentrate on consumptive water applications
and granting surplus water for other kinds of uses while still
protecting fish habitat and other important uses. This is what
DNR says it wants to do with HB 77, but she didn't think it
moves them in that direction.
6:20:26 PM
CHARLES BINGHAM, representing himself, Sitka, Alaska, opposed HB
77. He said the Constitution of the State of Alaska has a
concept called "the commons," which means that shared resources,
oceans, streams, minerals, technology, infrastructure, land,
civil space, all of those are to be looked at as a commonly
owned resource for everybody's use, not just corporations or
that kind of group. In order to protect the commons you need to
have an engaged public process. HB 77 really restricts the
public process.
MR. BINGHAM said he also looked on clean water as being a key
resource for Alaska. For instance, the people in West Virginia
have not been able to drink their water for two months now,
because of contamination from Freedom Industry's spill, part of
which was because of lax regulations, which is what this bill is
doing. The business declared bankruptcy and now the state has to
pay to clean it up, and the water is still damaged.
6:22:55 PM
CANDY ROHRER, representing herself, Homer, Alaska, opposed HB 77
in its current form. She and her husband are farmers and
ranchers in Homer. One issue, in particular, concerned her and
that is that an individual may file an appeal, but not a special
interest group. That can be cost prohibitive for an individual,
and a daunting, overwhelming process, especially when other
entities have a cascade of consultants and lawyers that the
individual doesn't have access to.
She called their attention to the appeals page, section 13 where
it says that if you are adversely affected, a prequalification,
you can do an appeal and a request for reconsideration in five
days, but that just isn't enough time. Often people don't even
know that something is coming down the pike; doing something
that you have little or no knowledge of or experience at can be
totally overwhelming.
MS. ROHRER said the new version is very interesting and she
wished she had it sooner. They should be doing a Socratic
seminar on it and go through each section. She commended her
fellow Alaskans for really looking at the details and speaking
so eloquently about them.
6:25:14 PM
JOMO STEWART, Energy and Mining Project Manager, Fairbanks
Economic Development Corporation (FEDC), Fairbanks, Alaska,
supported HB 77. He said Alaska is a resource state and there is
an understanding that the key to its economic development would
come through timely, judicious, and balanced use of its natural
resources. Generally, prudent development has been assured
through application of a fair, open, and rigorous regime, but
inefficiencies in the permitting system have in the past
hampered or even stymied otherwise productive and beneficial
projects. This hasn't only harmed large corporations, but also
individual Alaskans in businesses who have sought access to
state lands and resources and has slowed or even arrested
Alaska's local, regional, and statewide economic growth.
FEDC supports HB 77, because though it is primarily designed or
appears to be a means of addressing the chronic timeliness issue
that resulted in a backlog of 2,600 pending applications in
2010. It achieved this goal without appreciably diminishing or
damaging other facets of the otherwise model regulatory regime.
It streamlined the process, which will lead to cost savings for
both project sponsors and the state.
6:27:33 PM
GEORGE PIERCE, representing himself, Kasilof, Alaska, opposed HB
77. He suggested sending this bill to the Judiciary Committee,
because it looks like a future lawsuit, because Tribes,
fishermen groups, and Alaskans will appeal to federal agencies
to step in and help protect the subsistence resources.
He said leaving DNR in charge of permitting and appeals sounded
suspicious to him. This bill makes it difficult for Alaskans to
have a say at the table about development of our natural
resources and how they should be managed in the most responsible
way possible. People shouldn't have to pay for water rights to
keep water in the streams of the fish.
6:29:43 PM
LISA WEISSLER, representing herself, Juneau, AK, supported HB 77
with some additions. She said she is an attorney and had
submitted written comments identifying a whole bunch of legal
issues including a catch-22 when it comes to appeals of general
permits. But just fixing that problem won't solve the larger
problem facing our state: that the state permitting system no
longer serves the public interests. Since 2003, doors have been
closing on the local governments and public involvement in
resource permitting decisions and HB 77 just closes more of
those doors.
So, instead of trying to fix a bad bill, they should be working
to fix the system. Some other legislation could be fit into this
bill to enforce an Alaska Supreme Court decision that was issued
last March, Sullivan v. Red Oil in which the court found that
DNR has a constitutional duty to analyze the cumulative impacts
of certain oil and gas projects and to provide meaningful public
notice of that analysis. DNR is currently ignoring that law
without a legal basis that she has seen or heard of. She said
this constitutionally required cumulative impact analysis would
give the public and agencies an opportunity to review projects
as a whole and that's a way to help the public interest become
part of the resource development decision making.
She recapped that they need the legislation to enforce the court
decision as a matter of law, but it also has the added benefit
of starting us on the path of rebuilding our permitting system,
one that will serve the public interest as it's envisioned by
the Alaska Constitution and that will serve all of Alaskans.
6:31:54 PM
ERIC BOOTON, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed HB
77. He said he was disappointed in the response from the
Resources Chair to citizens who had emailed her about not being
able to testify on this issue. As an avid sport fisherman, young
resident of Alaska, he strongly opposed this bill and the "weak
amendments" proposed for it. He said HB 77 guts existing laws
that already don't go far enough to protect our fish and their
habitat and they need to be strengthened. He said our public
process is among the best in the world and this bill is a
"Frankenfish" that is too flawed to fix. However, he thanked
Senator Micciche and Senator McGuire for their efforts.
6:33:57 PM
BILL WARREN, representing himself, Nikiski, Alaska, opposed HB
77. He is a 63-year resident of Alaska and a retired member of
the Pipefitters Local 367. He had worked from Ketchikan to
Barrow and throughout a lot of the Lower 48 and had seen water
abused with his own eyes. He had seen the Hoover Dam on the
mighty Columbia and Hanford with nuclear waste problems, maybe
tragically. He had worked up in the Great Lakes at a time when
you couldn't eat the fish and in Nikiski that has had water
contamination problems from industry that are still not
completely fixed. In Fairbanks, Flint Hills is undergoing bad
water issues. Pure water is primary and the wisdom of the public
is needed to keep alignment with Alaskans.
6:36:51 PM
RANDY POWELSON, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska,
supported HB 77. He congratulated all who testified today, both
pro and con, because participation is what America is all about.
He paraphrased a famous quote that says I disagree with you, but
I defend your right to say it. In that spirit, they must keep an
open mind and listen to opposing views and give them honest
consideration.
He had actually read HB 77 and supported the effort to
streamline state government. Efficient management of Alaska's
natural resources is absolutely vital to the continued wellbeing
of Alaska's people and the state economy. Alaska's motto is
"North to the Future" not "Stop and Remain in the Past." The
hard reality is that somebody has to work and pay the bills and
the taxes; Alaska's resources pay the bills, period.
Today the debate is about progress versus preservation;
conservationists versus environmentalist. He is a
conservationist and believed in the wide and appropriate use of
natural resources and lands for all, not just for subsistence.
6:39:29 PM
DAVE CANNON, Environmental Director, Native Village of
Napaimute, Aniak, Alaska, opposed HB 77 and the CS. The chair
said she hadn't heard anything new, but he was going to try to
provide something a little bit different.
He had only lived in this state for 15 years; prior to living on
the Kuskokwim he was a fish biologist in Idaho who witnessed
first-hand the decline of the salmon in the Pacific Northwest,
mostly the result of habitat alteration or degradation due to
lack of oversight or weakened regulations. HB 77 is too
reminiscent of the political meddling in the guise of
streamlining the permitting process. He definitely didn't agree
with the two mining testimonies that claimed on Wednesday that
this bill would actually improve public participation.
They still believe that the commissioner would have too much
discretion over decisions that could have long ranging
detrimental impacts to acquatic resources. Including things like
Chikuminuk muddies the process and he was glad that was removed.
6:42:01 PM
FRANK BERGSTROM, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, supported
HB 77. He said he was a member of the AMA and board member of
First Things First Alaska Foundation, which seeks to spread
information and educate people about the importance of natural
resources in our lives and economy here in Alaska. He said is he
also an adjunct professor of ballroom dance at the UAS. He came
here to personally thank them for such an excellent bill; it's a
superb tool that is needed by the agencies to protect and manage
the resources that we have.
6:43:20 PM
MICHAEL JESPERSN, representing himself and family, Anchorage,
Alaska, supported HB 77. He thanked everyone for their hard work
on this bill. He hadn't read the new CS, but had read the one
that came out Wednesday and wanted people to understand that
page 2 (from Wednesday) says there will be a comment period of
"not less than" 30 days; it doesn't say "just" 30 days prior to
issuing a permit, and that's plenty of time.
Public comment is not being stifled, he said. State government
is required to manage natural resources for the benefit of all
Alaskans and water is our basic resource. Yet now, anyone can
reserve water and take it away from the rest, and while he
doesn't really trust anybody, he thought the state government
was more likely to do a good job of managing water reservations
than individuals or special interest groups intent on blocking
development. Requiring people and groups to show harm prior to
challenging a permit after it is issued is a good idea, but he
thought requiring everyone applying for a permit to do the same
scientific study and rigor developers must currently do would be
a better idea.
6:45:29 PM
PAUL ZIMMERMAN, representing himself, Kasilof, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. He said he is alarmed at the trend he sees for so-called
conservatives to propose various methods to limit or deny
individual citizens or groups of citizens the right to
participate in the decisions of their own governance. That trend
manifests itself in many ways from actions meant to deny them
standing in courts to actions to do away with whole programs;
from actions which deny due process to actions that extend to
even limit a citizen's right to vote. HB 77 is more of the same.
MR. ZIMMERMAN said he was also "disgusted" with the attempt to
create a false narrative and mischaracterize those who may
object to the intent of HB 77, as his senator has said to the
press that anyone who would dare object to this proposed
legislation would have to be labeled as an "extremist."
6:47:56 PM
SHARON ALDEN, representing herself, Fairbanks, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. She said it is an egregious attempt to remove the
peoples' voice and their ability to challenge DNR's decisions.
If this bill passes, she said all Alaskans will be
"substantially and adversely negatively affected." This
streamlining essentially short-cuts and short-circuits the
process. She mentioned that about a dozen people who were going
to testify in opposition weren't able to remain this late.
6:50:30 PM
TIMOTHY WONHOLA, representing himself, New Stuyahok, Alaska,
opposed HB 77. He was concerned that the younger generations
will not have the opportunity that he has had. He had lived in
Alaska for 67 years without HB 77. He has seen a lot of changes,
but this is not one that he wants to see.
6:52:55 PM
JUDY ANDREY, Chair, Legislative Action Committee, Alaska League
of Women Voters, Juneau, Alaska, opposed HB 77. The League is
very interested in full public participation in governmental and
legislative decision-making. There needs to be adequate public
input, because this is a democracy for one thing, but the other
thing is legislation that is pushed through too quickly can have
some unintended consequences. One of the ways to avoid this is
to allow full public participation. Thirty days is not enough
and the appeal process is very limited - only to people who have
gotten in to testify or have written a letter - which gets back
to the 30 days. Maybe people are out fishing and need more time
to respond.
She said it seems that DNR doesn't have adequate funding to take
care of the permitting process and they would advocate for that.
They would also like to support the others who have said there
needs to be a clear definition of "substantially and adversely
affected."
6:55:44 PM
KARA HASTINGS, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. This bill is too big and too vague. The one thing that
gets her the most is that big blanket statements like
"substantially and adversely affected" need to be defined.
6:56:39 PM
PAUL SHADURA, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association, Kasilof,
Alaska, supported Senator Micciche and Chair Giessel's efforts
to develop solutions for the revisions to the general permitting
regulations in HB 77 and they support many of the changes, but
it must balance the water uses. Any law is only effective if
those who are deciphering the intent language do so with
reasonable interpretations. And considering the political nature
of resource management in Alaska, they question that the current
version clarifies the intent to protect and promote the
resources of the state. However, he said they supported many of
the changes in the current version of HB 77.
In Section 14, although they continue with the original language
that has the director throw the dice and then question appeals
based on "substantially and adversely affected" competing
commercial setnet fishermen, they believe this may be an
inequitable contradiction. Section 40(c),(4), (a)-(e) especially
(b) and (c) offer some definitions to establish guidelines for
consideration, by the DNR commissioner, but section 42(i) begs
the question: while an agency such as ADF&G who holds the water
reservation for persons substantiate and defend the rights of
the applicant in the case of an appeal, will the department then
be held accountable for the accuracy of the hydrological data
collected by the applicant to support the application?
He said it was not their intent to hinder the adoption of this
bill and felt that the efforts to streamline the regulatory
process are important for the protection and orderly development
of the state's resources.
6:59:16 PM
DELORES LARSON, representing herself, New Koliganek, Alaska,
opposed HB 77, because it endangers the land they live off of,
their pristine waters, and most importantly the abundance of
fish and wildlife that her people have depended on for thousands
of years. She believed the reason why Bristol Bay is considered
a world class fishery is because most of it is left untouched by
large scale development. HB 77 silences her right to protect her
culture, their primary food sources, and the renewable natural
resources. Already, there are restrictions on how much fish,
caribou, and moose they can harvest each year, so why should she
trust the state to make decisions when they do not have their
best interests at heart and don't value the land, fish, and
animals like they do. The Tribes know what is best for Bristol
Bay and they need to recognize the importance of working with
the people who live there and have great insight into the
natural processes at work.
7:01:58 PM
KIRK HARDCASTLE, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, agreed
with many things said about HB 77, but was opposed to it. He
said he is a commercial fisherman in Alaska and a student of
Administrative Law and Natural Resources. He explained that he
agreed with what is being said against HB 77, but he wanted to
address something everyone should know and understand: the
Alaska Constitution. Article 8, section 1, provides that:
It is the policy of the state to encourage the
settlement of its land and the development of its
resources by making them available for maximum use
consistent with public interest.
He said it seems as though the public is not interested in this
bill, as well as the DNR mission statement, which is "to
responsibly develop Alaska's resources by making them available
for maximum use and benefit consistent with public interest." If
this bill passes, it could be unconstitutional on two levels.
From the DNR website he copied Joe Balash's sworn testimony that
he would support the public interest not special interests.
7:04:13 PM
SYLVIA PANZARELLA, representing herself and husband, Anchorage,
Alaska, opposed HB 77 and the CS. She thanked her senator,
Hollis French, for always keeping his eye open for the air, land
and water. She hoped he would do the right thing with HB 77 by
voting it down saying, "HB 77 and its rewrites are the same old
song and dance with different words."
She said an overwhelming number of citizens in Alaska do not buy
this. On Wednesday afternoon over 180 people gathered throughout
Alaska to speak; many had to take a day off from work, which is
not cheap. Of the handful of people who were allowed to speak
many were cut off in mid-sentence with arrogant and sarcastic
comments and comments were ended sharply at 5 p.m. This is
exactly the same attitude in HB 77; it attempts to silence the
voice of the people in various ways and it is their right to
speak.
7:06:47 PM
BENJAMIN JACKINSKY, representing himself, Kasilof, Alaska,
opposed HB 77. He said he is a commercial fisherman and small
business owner and felt humbled to be in the majority with so
many citizens of Alaska. He hadn't had enough time to read the
different versions of HB 77, but the committee seemed intent on
rushing through the process and have a vote on it. Therefore, he
can only hope that they will listen to the arguments presented
and try to understand the opposition to it. He said HB 77 seems
to have run amok with democracy by placing too much power in
hands of one individual, the DNR commissioner. He hoped
democracy would continue to function and that people's voices be
heard.
7:08:14 PM
PETER BUCK, Vice President, White Mountain Native Village, White
Mountain, Alaska, opposed HB 77. He said he is also a member of
the Seward Peninsula Regional Advisory Committee. His community
depends on the fish in the river for their subsistence due to
lack of jobs. They would like to monitor their river system by
taking data and making sure future developments, like mining,
don't affect it.
He said the Native Village of White Mountain supports resource
development and responsible growth. They, therefore, urge non
state and federal organizations such as White Mountain continue
to have the right to have a say in those things that directly
implicate their lives, and reserve the amount of in-stream flow
required to support acquatic life and protect habitat.
7:10:28 PM
CHELSEA GOUCHER, Executive Director, Greater Ketchikan Chamber
of Commerce, Ketchikan, Alaska, supported HB 77. She said in
light of an increasingly burdensome federal permitting process,
it's more important than ever that DNR do what it can to keep
things efficient and prevent future backlogs in the state
process. Efficiency and certainty are vital for encouraging
investment in our state and its people through expansion of the
tax base and job creation. Responsible resource development is
the foundation of our economy.
7:11:31 PM
RICK ROGERS, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
(RDC), Anchorage, Alaska, supported HB 77. If this legislation
put our renewable salmon resource in jeopardy and removed
Alaskans from important decisions regarding public resources or
if it extended unbridled power to the DNR commissioner, RDC
would stand in opposition to it, but to the contrary, they have
reviewed the bill with the exception of the new one today and
don't see where it does any of those things. It does make
systemic improvements to what has become a very complex set of
statutes that authorize DNR's work, but they are needed to
prevent future backlog and delays.
He said much in the bill is about helping smaller businesses and
Alaskans in making DNR more efficient. With budget deficits, he
asked if we could really afford having DNR adjudicate every
individual mooring buoy when a general permit could serve the
public interest. The amendments to the general permit language
are good, because they provide an appropriate limit to their
scope.
MR. ROGERS said the status quo on water reservations is bad
public policy. For example, in the late 90s, Green Peace
attempted to frustrate oil development near the Kuparuk River by
seeking a water reservation. Fortunately, in that case, the
facts did not support their claim, as the waters used in
development were not physically connected to the Kuparuk River.
However, the flawed law that allowed that attempt to cut off
Alaska's economic life blood is still on the books. They believe
this bill adequately addresses this issue by allowing persons to
apply for reservations and vesting the certification for the
water with the state agency.
7:14:02 PM
KATE VEH, representing herself, Soldotna, Alaska, opposed HB 77.
It gives too much power to the commissioner of DNR. It still
makes it difficult to appeal the process through the DNR. She
proposed creating a voter-friendly DNR that allows adequate
public input, much more than 30 days, so lawsuits don't end up
in the court system. She also proposed that legislators start
writing bills in a way that voters can actually understand
instead of using legal jargon and if this passes the people
should fire up the referendum process to put this bill up for a
vote. She proposed that the legislature create bills that
advance renewable energy, grow a vibrant Alaskan local foods
industry, and reduce the vast amounts of money going into
political campaigns.
7:16:02 PM
DIANE FOLSOM, representing herself, Dillingham, Alaska, thanked
them for removing Chikuminuk Dam and Woodtikchik State Park from
HB 77, but she still opposed it. She said she had been on hold
via telephone for 3 hours and 40 minutes to testify. This bill
gives DNR more rights over our waters and does away with
Alaskans' rights to appeal their decisions and Alaskans should
have the right to appeal decisions made state agencies. This
bill is aimed at passing the public and getting the Pebble Mine
their permits. The Governor's administration has refused to work
with the people of Bristol Bay and waited 10 months to work on
this bill and then did it behind closed doors.
7:17:57 PM
DOUG WARD, member, Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce,
Ketchikan, Alaska, supported HB 77. He said he also sits on the
Alaska Chamber board, the RDC board, and is the oldest surviving
member of the Alaska Workforce Investment Board where he is
still the executive council. His day job is working for Vigor
Alaska, the operator of the state-owned Ketchikan Shipyard. In
his professional capacity in Ketchikan, he said he had extensive
experience in preparing permit applications, environmental
documentation and assessments, and managing development projects
in the state. He supported HB 77 and "the lengthy process that
DNR and other state permitting agencies have gone through to
create an efficient, fair, and effective permit process."
MR. WARD said that HB 77 does not cut Alaskans out of the public
process; rather it strengthens it. It doesn't give the DNR
commissioner excessive authority, nor does it put salmon or the
environment in jeopardy, but it does give young Alaskans a much
better opportunity to prosper in this state.
MR. WARD said passage of HB 77 will increase the efficiency of
our land and water use authorizations while maintaining Alaska's
high environmental standards.
7:19:52 PM
CARL PORTMAN, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, supported
CSHB 77. It improves the process of issuing general permits and
efficiently addresses the severe backlog in permitting. It will
not circumvent any environmental laws including the rigorous
federal NEPA process and its many opportunities for public
comment.
Under the CS, he said individuals, tribes, and others will
continue to be able to apply for water reservations, but their
certificate will be issued to an appropriate state agency
ensuring public resources are rightfully managed by public
agencies with scientific expertise. This is important, because
for large projects that are multiple years in the planning, the
decision on how to withdraw water, protect the fish, and provide
for economic development should be made with all the data and
with an understanding of all the environmental and social
effects. The agencies are in the best position to make science-
based decisions on our water resources.
7:21:44 PM
JUDY BRAKEL, representing herself, Gustavus, Alaska, opposed HB
77. She thanked the committee for hanging in there and the
testifiers for showing up. Alaska has already lost the Coastal
Zone Management (CZM) program, one of the very few bases under
which people and communities in coastal Alaska could participate
in decisions on land and near-shore waters.
She said this administration has worked to take powers away from
citizens and the Alaska Constitution already makes the governor
and hence the administration exceptionally powerful. This bill
would go a long way to consolidating more power with them,
particularly the commissioner of DNR.
MS. BRAKEL said she had studied the new CS and some things that
are important are not in there. What's missing? General permits
have been described by the DNR as applying to relatively minor
matters, such as mooring buoys, but the actual language has no
sideboards for the kinds of activities that can be permitted.
She didn't know what "significant or irreparable damage" meant.
7:24:30 PM
ANDREW SPOKELY, Ward Cove Group & AMA, Ketchikan, Alaska,
supported HB 77. It is critical to development and jobs in
Alaska.
7:25:28 PM
KATI CAPOZZI, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, supported
CSHB 77. She said the well-thought-out changes introduced in
this week sufficiently addressed the concerns that had been
voiced while still achieving the original intent of the bill to
implement a more efficient permitting process. She thanked
Senator Micciche for helping bring forth the balance and
Chairman Giessel for her fair process in the public hearings.
She also thanked Senator Fairclough for her yes vote on this
bill.
7:27:07 PM
DAVE CRUZ, President, Cruz Companies, Alaska, supported HB 77.
He said he was responsible for several hundred Alaskan workers
that rely on responsible resource development for their jobs.
This is what needs to be done; it will help out the permitting
process as many projects are extremely time sensitive and the
current system is flawed. This does not circumvent the ADF&G
requirement for habitat protection. He thanked them for their
time and work on it.
7:28:39 PM
ELSA SEBASTIAN, representing herself, Juneau, Alaska, opposed HB
77. She said she is a life-long Alaskan and a permit holding
commercial fisherman. Her greatest concern with this bill is the
way it redefines the roll of regulators. Ideally, it is their
role to receive applications from private interests whether they
are appropriations, individuals or tribes and to weigh those
applications equally. However, under this bill even with the
amendments, the DNR is not held sufficiently accountable. They
will not have to review water reservation applications in the
order they are received giving DNR the power to prioritize
certain applications and backlog others, which already seems to
be a problem.
Further, she said, the commissioner of DNR is selected by the
governor and she was honestly concerned that would allow a
tremendous potential for cronyism and prioritizing the water
applications that they want. Clearly, the DNR should have a
standard protocol and timeline for considering every application
and this is sorely missing from the current bill.
It is important that every avenue for public participation be
wide open, she said; every Alaskan should be afforded a moment
to voice their concerns and defend their interests no matter
what they are. This committee's hearings have demonstrated that
and she hoped they wouldn't let the bill go further.
7:30:55 PM
MARLEANNA HALL, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska,
supported CSHB 77. As a lifelong Alaskan she supported economic
and community development opportunities across the state. She
was lucky to have a job she truly enjoyed and wanted the same
for her son when he goes to work here. She believed HB 77 will
reduce the ability of anti-development organizations to abuse
the system and stop progress. This bill will provide certainty
in the permitting process, which is one of the best in the
world, and make it more efficient. Sending Alaskans to work is
another great benefit of this bill.
7:32:02 PM
MATT OBERMILLER, representing himself, Copper Basin, Alaska,
opposed HB 77. Removing Alaskans voice from issues that affect
them is wrong and HB 77 is something a terrible dictator would
be proud of; it is not how things are done in America.
He kept hearing about efficiency and streamlining, but the DNR
permitting is not currently cumbersome or burdensome to
responsible development. It is shorter and cheaper than any
other state in the country. Alaska is currently and usually free
and easy place to do development for anyone from large
corporations to small miners.
MR. OBERMILLER said he was recently involved in permitting a
sizeable local gold mine and the accepted DNR application
literally looked like it was filled out and compiled by a third-
grader, not a barrier to anyone. He said HB 77 is a "Trojan
Horse" to allow irresponsible projects to escape the public
scrutiny that they should be submitted to.
7:34:34 PM
STUART COHEN, representing himself, Juneau, AK, opposed HB 77
saying he has a small business and is a novelist. He saw an
editorial yesterday by Joe Balash who said in 2011 more than
2,600 permits were backlogged and that DNR had cut it by more
than 50 percent. So, why don't they just hire more people to
work through the backlog using the current permitting process
and then scale back those people to the point where there are
enough people to deal with whatever the workload?
MR. COHEN said he was sure the permitting process is
complicated, because environments are complicated and also
because democracy is complicated. But the reason we have a
democracy is because everybody is a special interest unless they
are living in some totalitarian utopia where everyone thinks
alike. He said as far as substantially and adversely affected
goes, even though he lives in Juneau, if something happens in
Kenai, he feels its affects him and he would want to be able to
speak out.
7:37:00 PM
ANDY ROGERS, representing himself and his family, Anchorage,
Alaska, supported HB 77.
7:37:58 PM
NICK PASTOS, Alaska Big Village Network, Anchorage, Alaska,
opposed HB 77 and its amendments. He said he was also a board
member of the Center for Water saying that the human right for
water is profound and essential; water knows no boundaries. The
tribal community throughout Alaska has passed resolutions that
need to be respected. He said not only was it hard to keep up
with the changes in the bill, but it was hard to get access to
testify on it. Access is fundamental to democracy.
7:41:24 PM
RACHAEL PETRO, President and CEO, Alaska Chamber of Commerce,
Anchorage, Alaska, supported HB 77 and its amendments. She said
the Chamber's primary mission is to advocate for policies that
improve Alaska's business climate. That comes with challenges,
but when all the members agree on issues it is a little bit
amazing. One thing they agree on is that efficient, predictable,
and common sense regulation and permitting processes are
integral to creating an environment in which businesses, new and
old, can proceed. The amendments improve the bill and address
the comments they heard last session.
7:43:52 PM
JASON BRUNE, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, supported
HB 77. He said he is a board member of the RDC and the Alaska
Chamber, Vice President and the Anchorage Branch Chair of the
Alaska Miners Association, and Chair of the Consumer Energy
Alliance Alaska. Each of these organizations represents
thousands of Alaskans and they support HB 77. He also supports
salmon and public input, subsistence rights, and responsible
development of Alaska's natural resources.
He is a biologist and knew first-hand from previous jobs the way
companies that try to develop these Alaskan resources respect
the land, the fish, the culture, and public input. He also knew
that if they continue to put up roadblocks to stopping this
responsible resource development, companies employing Alaskans
will leave. And when we push development out of Alaska it is
forced to go to third-world nations where they don't care about
the environment or the water. We should do all we can to
encourage development in Alaska and HB 77 does that without
compromising our environmental ethics.
He referenced the AMA and RDC White Paper that said currently 85
percent of all non-agency in-stream water flow reservation
applications are done to block projects, often plagiarizing data
gathered by the resource developers. HB 77 ensures that water
resources are managed by those who are best equipped with the
science-based expertise that our state resource agencies have.
7:46:34 PM
BYRON CHARLES, representing himself, Ketchikan, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. He thanked Senator Micciche and Senator McGuire for
taking the time to listen to him. One of the largest growing
industries in our state is the tourist industry and careful
decisions should be made in an equal decision processing system
at the local, state and federal level.
He said that the 1958 Alaska Statehood Act is an agreement and
the decision making system goes against this agreement. He works
for the Forest Service and helps build trails and bridges in the
Southeast area. They felled a tree over a coho stream and
weren't ready to take it out, but he asked them to remove it,
because it is part of the resources.
7:49:11 PM
JEREMY BLACK, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. It diminishes Alaskan voices even with the changes in the
new version. No amount of governmental or corporate efficiencies
is worth even slightly silencing individuals, especially those
that live off the land, let alone destroying the amazing
biological efficiency of tribes and communities using that land
ultimately to sustain themselves rather than being used solely
for resource extraction.
7:50:31 PM
TOM LAKOSH, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed HB
77. He claimed it was unconstitutional and would cost millions
of dollars to defend in court. All committee members should be
encouraged to seek resolution of the unconstitutional issues and
save the state's budget.
He noted that beyond the violation of due process, equal
protection, and fairness in Article 1, this committee is
specifically empowered to enact legislation having to do with
Article 8. Under sections 8 and 9, regarding leases, sales, and
grants, there must be due compensation for any displacement of
reasonable and current uses. That means those claims would be
compensable. Limiting claims for DNR to irrevocable harm
necessarily violates those sections of the Constitution and
would necessarily bypass and give rise to direct court action
that would be futile.
7:53:23 PM
GUTHRIE WORTHINGTON, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska,
opposed HB 77. One of its main factors is that it cuts off a lot
of time for people like him who don't put everything into
politics. He said he is a UAA student and was grateful and felt
lucky to be there.
7:55:31 PM
BEN MOHR, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, supported HB
77. He was a fan of the provisions for small miners, especially
through the issuance of general permits. They are not
unprecedented and can be seen issued at the federal level. He
said the DNR had been reviewing the permitting system for
efficiencies since 2011 and applauded the commissioners' efforts
to get Alaska into the 21st Century when it comes to permitting.
The reforms they have made do not diminish our standards in any
way, but just make it so things can be done more efficiently.
7:59:29 PM
CHRIS GERONDALE, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, supported
HB 77. He said he is a life-long Alaskan, a member of the Alaska
Miners Association, and a small business owner. He supported
this bill because he was concerned about Alaska's finances. He
felt that efficiencies resulting from this bill would assist in
resource development without harming the environment. It
provides for the issuance of general permits so that minor
projects can be permitted practically. Section 1 makes it clear
there is a requirement for public notice and provides
opportunity for public input on any general permit. General
permits would cover activities that are already authorized for
permit under existing statute; they are not unprecedented. In
fact, they are used by both the state and federal agencies
currently. Alaska already issues general permits for minor
activities, but this bill codifies it.
He said that HB 77 implements changes that will provide
certainty and a timely response to Alaskans that obtain permits
while maintaining efficiently run state agencies in these times
of trimming the state budget and efficiency measures in HB 77
help address the cause of the backlog moving forward.
8:01:39 PM
MOXI ANDREW, JR., Vice President, , Stuyahok Ltd., New Stuyahok
Village, Alaska, opposed HB 77. He said it would give the DNR
commissioner authorization to exchange state land without
considering the public process and they don't have to follow any
state laws. He thanked Senator Hoffman, Representative Edgmon,
Senator McGuire, and Senator Stevens for taking out Chikuminuk
Lake and he emphasized that they were against it because they
strongly believe that the Chikuminuk Hydro-electric project
can't co-exist because of the wilderness designated area.
For thousands of years their ancestors have lived and used the
area and they want to keep it pristine and untouched for future
generations. He said they want the Park Service to continue to
protect their subsistence and recreation activities by using the
non-development and wilderness character.
They also believe in a fair, democratic process that would
require timely notice on any new bills and permits. Public
testimony is important for future decisions; for instance, 81
percent of Bristol Bay citizens opposed Pebble Mine and in New
Stuyahok it was 93 percent. They do not want the DNR
commissioner to make any decisions for them, because they can
only use the 51 percent certainty that harm can be repaired.
Good scientific data is needed on any new development in Alaska,
because of the sensitive water based eco-system. Keep the Alaska
Constitution strong he urged.
8:04:01 PM
JENAE PANAMARIOFF, New Stuyahok Village, Alaska, opposed HB 77
because it silences the public process for testifying against
any issues or topics that are brought by the DNR. She grew up
going to fish camp every summer with her grandparents; as
Alaskans they need to take care of the land, water, wildlife,
fisheries, migratory birds, and everything that grows out of
vegetation so that other people can continue to use their
subsistence food. She thanked them for the opportunity to
testify.
8:05:38 PM
PETER CHRISTOPHER, SR., Vice President, New Stuyahok Ltd., New
Stuyahok, Alaska, opposed HB 77. He said he is also on the
Nushigak Advisory Committee. Sections 1 and 5 (AS 38.05.02) give
the DNR commissioner too much power to either accept or deny an
application. He asked them to consider section 16 saying he
didn't want to see any farmed salmon in the State of Alaska.
Bristol Bay salmon is abundant and better than farmed salmon and
he wanted to eat natural renewable salmon year after year.
8:08:11 PM
CRAWFORD PARR, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed
HB 77. He is a commercial pilot who had lived in many villages
and towns in Alaska and was very familiar with topography of the
state of Alaska and one thing he has noticed is that if it's not
a mountain, it's a swamp, a lake, a river, a stream; it's a body
of water, basically. He was standing with those against HB 77,
because its intent is to get the public out of the decision
making process and to empower an appointed group of people in
DNR to make decisions for Alaskans based on development as the
goal as opposed to vetting projects based on their
sustainability, viability, and the proof that they are not going
to harm the environment. He viewed HB 77 as essential
legislation to forward the interests of the Pebble Limited
partnership.
CHAIR GIESSEL found no one else to testify, said she would
continue to receive written testimony, and closed oral public
testimony. She showed testimony that had arrived in the last two
days in her office saying they were all printed out and every
legislator had this packet.
[HB 77 was held in committee.]