Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
02/17/2009 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB121 | |
| HB134 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 17, 2009
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Herron, Co-Chair
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Co-Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 121
"An Act relating to a municipal property tax credit for an
improvement that aids in improving air quality."
- MOVED HB 121 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 134
"An Act relating to the terms and conditions of commercial
vessel permits for the discharge of graywater, treated sewage,
and other waste water; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 134(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 121
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL AIR QUALITY PROPERTY TAX CREDIT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL
02/09/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/09/09 (H) CRA, FIN
02/17/09 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 134
SHORT TITLE: CRUISE SHIP WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HARRIS
02/13/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/09 (H) CRA, RES
02/17/09 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff
Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 121 on behalf of the sponsor.
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged swift passage of HB 134.
JOHN BINKLEY, President
Alaska Cruise Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
CHIP THOMA, President
Responsible Cruising in Alaska (RCA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that HB 134 is premature.
BOB WEINSTEIN, Mayor
City of Ketchikan
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
WAYNE STEVENS, President/CEO
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged adoption of HB 134.
JENNIFER GIBBINS, Executive Director
Prince William Soundkeeper
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Characterized HB 134 as premature.
STAN STEVENS
Valdez, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support HB 134.
KURT HARDCASTLE, Commercial Fisherman
Taku River Red
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 134, emphasized the
need to consider the volume of discharge.
KAREN HESS, Owner
River Adventures
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
CHRIS ANDERSON, Co-Owner
Glacier BrewHouse and Orso
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
ROBERT SHEER, Owner
Great Alaskan Lumberjack Show
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
SHAUNA LEE, Manager
Great Alaskan Lumberjack Show
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
LEN LAURANCE, Marketing Consultant
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
KATHY WASSERMAN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
JEREMY GIEZER, Member
Board of the Alaska Travel Industry Association (ATIA) - Juneau
Chapter
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
JASON BRUNE, Executive Director
Resource Development Council (RDC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:01:58 AM
CO-CHAIR BOB HERRON called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:01 a.m.
Representatives Herron, Munoz, Harris, and Millett were present
at the call to order. Representatives Keller, Cissna, and
Gardner arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 121 - MUNICIPAL AIR QUALITY PROPERTY TAX CREDIT
8:02:24 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 121, "An Act relating to a municipal property
tax credit for an improvement that aids in improving air
quality."
8:03:06 AM
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff, Representative John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, relayed that one of the dynamics of living in the
Alaska is the cold and the inversions that occur. She then
informed the committee that in 2006 the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) increased the stringency of the particulate matter
2.5 standard. In 2007 the EPA defined the requirements for
state's to clean the air in areas where the fine particulate
pollution didn't meet the national air quality standard; these
were referred to as nonattainment areas. Nonattainment areas
had three years to submit a plan to EPA that included
enforceable measures to reduce air pollution emissions and show
how reasonable progress would be made to attain that standard.
These standards must be achieved no later than 2015.
MS. LIDSTER explained that as Fairbanks North Star Borough and
other communities seek ways in which to meet air quality
standards, they wanted more than just restrictions and
enforcement-based options. This legislation provides the
aforementioned in the form of an optional tax credit. The
legislation provides an incentive to citizens to make
improvements to their home and business that improve the
community's air quality. The language in HB 121 requires that
eligibility conditions and other criteria be established by
local ordinance to address local community needs. Ms. Lidster
pointed out that nonattainment areas are a public as well as an
economic issue. In fact, Federal Highway Administration funds
could be lost or new projects denied. This legislation will
help communities provide incentives that promote a healthy
economy for residents. In closing, Ms. Lidster requested the
committee's support for HB 121.
8:05:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS offered his understanding that HB 121 is
permissive not mandatory and merely encourages people to install
systems that promote healthier air.
MS. LIDSTER concurred on both counts.
8:07:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether there has been any
indication that the Fairbanks North Star Borough would implement
this if HB 121 passes. She also asked what would happen if the
borough implemented the program and it was wildly successful
with many participants, and the property tax receipts in
Fairbanks decreased.
MS. LIDSTER related her understanding that the Fairbanks North
Star Borough is very interested in the passage of HB 121 and
having the option to use incentives to encourage its residents
to help with air quality. Ms. Lidster surmised that were the
program to be wildly successful, the borough would review the
impact of a reduction in the tax at the local level since the
incentive would be a local ordinance.
8:08:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS surmised, then, that the portion of the
property tax that is allowed to be credited would be for the
expense of installing a new system, which wouldn't occur each
year. He further surmised that an individual would have to
provide proof of improvements to air quality that would qualify
for the proposed credit.
MS. LIDSTER stated her agreement.
8:09:34 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ moved to report HB 121 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 121 was reported from the
House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 134 - CRUISE SHIP WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS
8:10:43 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 134, "An Act relating to the terms and
conditions of commercial vessel permits for the discharge of
graywater, treated sewage, and other waste water; and providing
for an effective date."
8:10:59 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 134, Version 26-LS0570\E, Bullard, 2/16/09, as the
work draft. There being no objection, Version E was before the
committee.
8:11:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS, speaking as the sponsor of HB 134, began
by explaining that Version E was necessary because of the change
to the title of the legislation to conform to the language of
the body of the legislation. Following "commercial" the word
"passenger" was inserted. The intent of this legislation is to
provide the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) the
ability to implement the law as it sees fit. Currently, the
cruise ship initiative restricts DEC's ability to implement its
regulations. He noted that this isn't the first amendment to
the initiative. He reminded the committee that the first
amendment, House Bill 217, to the initiative was by
Representative Lindsey Holmes and amended the disclosures
portion of the initiative. The second amendment, Senate Bill
121, to the initiative was by Senator Kim Elton and addressed
the discharge from smaller cruise ships. Both of the
aforementioned amendments to the initiative passed
overwhelmingly.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS opined that one must ask what the intent
was when Alaskans passed the cruise ship initiative. Certainly,
everyone would agree the intent was to strengthen environmental
regulations involving discharges of large cruise ships. This
proposed legislation, HB 134, doesn't diminish the standards.
The legislation merely provides DEC with more tools to implement
the standards. He reminded the committee that prior to the
passage of Proposition 2, standards were established in 2001 by
House Bill 260, which passed in both bodies overwhelmingly.
Representative Harris acknowledged that some might say that
there are other methods by which the [cruise ship] industry can
be made to comply. However, those methods won't be precluded by
the passage of HB 134. This proposed legislation merely
provides DEC the ability to test in a slightly different manner
than under the current initiative. Furthermore, HB 134 won't
stop the industry from having to implement new and modern
technology, if DEC so chooses.
8:16:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS noted a recent Anchorage Daily News
article in support of HB 134. He assured the committee that he
isn't opposed to keeping the environment clean and is proud that
Alaskans have looked at the issues and attempted to make the
state a cleaner and better place, in relation to environmental
standards, to live. From the Anchorage Daily News article
entitled "Our View: Cruise Law Amendment" he read the following
excerpts:
So we yes to the Harris amendment, but with this
addition -- require both the cruise industry and DEC
to report on the latest practical technologies for the
cleanest effluent, and give DEC the authority to
require those, at least as pilot programs, within a
reasonable time frame.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good; cruise
pollution controls are vastly improved over 10 to 15
years ago. What they discharge is much cleaner than
what Alaska cities pour into Alaska waters every day.
Give the cruise lines some leeway.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS, in conclusion, asked the committee for a
favorable review of HB 134.
8:19:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that yesterday
DEC published a report regarding the technologies available.
She expressed interest in obtaining that report prior to voting
on HB 134.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA offered her understanding that there is a
presentation regarding the available technology [for cruise
ships to use with wastewater treatment]. She asked if the
committee is planning to report HB 134 from committee today.
CO-CHAIR HERRON specified that it's the intent of the co-chairs
to take all testimony today and then consider [action on HB
134].
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS interjected that the presentation to which
Representative Cissna is referring won't make any difference
because the DEC can still mandate the best available technology.
The initiative bound the hands of DEC with regard to where and
how it can test. Tomorrow's presentation will likely specify
what types are the best available technologies. He reiterated
that HB 134 doesn't keep DEC from mandating the best available
technology.
8:22:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related her belief that it's important not
to hurry to obtain forthcoming information.
CO-CHAIR HERRON mentioned that he was going to request that the
department provide a preview of the presentation that will occur
tomorrow.
8:24:17 AM
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), relayed that DEC has been
implementing the cruise ship initiative passed by voters in
2006. The initiative included the following three main
environmental provisions: to have an ocean ranger on board, to
report the vessel's location hourly to DEC, and for those
vessels wishing to discharge wastewater to obtain a wastewater
discharge permit from DEC. The initiative requires an ocean
ranger or a U.S. Coast Guard licensed marine engineer to be on
board all large cruise vessels entering Alaska's waters. The
purpose of the ocean rangers' presence is to observe the
vessel's compliance with state and federal environmental,
sanitation, health, and safety rules. The aforementioned
program is funded by a $4 per birth fee and nets about $4
million per year, which is about how much the department invests
in the program each year. She then highlighted that DEC
implemented a pilot program during the 2007 cruise ship season
during which the department tried to learn about the program and
what it would take to implement it. The training needs for the
ocean rangers were reviewed and a check list for their
observations was developed. The department learned all about
making reservations for every cruise ship coming to Alaska,
scheduling of ocean rangers, and how ocean rangers would
communicate with DEC while onboard the vessels. The full
implementation of the ocean ranger program began with the 2008
cruise ship season. She informed the committee that an ocean
ranger was on board 88 percent of the voyages in Alaska waters.
The other vessels were visited while in port in Alaska. During
that time, over 2,000 daily reports were received from the ocean
rangers through which 126 incidents were learned about and
required follow up. Almost all of the aforementioned incidents
were addressed by the vessel when brought to the attention of
the environmental officer onboard the vessels.
MS. TOMICH KENT then turned to the vessel tracking requirement.
All of the vessels complied with this requirement and DEC has
used this information to verify compliance. The wastewater
permit portion of the initiative required large cruise ships to
obtain a wastewater permit from DEC and comply with Alaska's
water quality standards at the point of discharge. The
aforementioned is the language with which the department is
concerned. Ms. Tomich Kent explained that Alaska's water
quality standards are regulations that describe how clean the
state's fresh and marine waters must be in order to protect
various uses. The department protects the waters for drinking
purposes, contact recreation, and aquatic life. The standards
apply to the water body and not directly to a wastewater
discharge, except in the case of discharges from large cruise
ships where the discharges must meet the water quality standards
at the point of discharge. Last March, DEC developed and issued
a general permit that contains long-term effluent limits for
things such as ammonia, copper, nickel, and zinc that are based
on the water quality standards. She noted that by the terms of
the permit issued, these effluent limits must be met by the 2010
cruise ship season. The permit also contains a compliance
schedule and interim limits that are less stringent for the
2008-2009 cruise ship seasons.
MS. TOMICH KENT offered her understanding that HB 134 would
allow DEC, under certain circumstances, to authorize mixing
zones for treated wastewater that's discharged from cruise
ships. She explained that a mixing zone is an area within the
receiving water body in which the water quality standards can be
exceeded while the wastewater has a chance to mix with the
receiving waters. The water quality standards, she stated, have
to be met at the edge of that authorized mixing zone. The DEC
has been researching the science surrounding cruise ship
wastewater for many years and most recently has been engaged in
a series of studies some of which have been done in conjunction
with the EPA regarding how cruise ship discharges mix with the
receiving waters.
8:29:13 AM
MS. TOMICH KENT informed the committee that all of the large
cruise ship vessels that discharge into Alaska's waters have
installed advanced wastewater treatment systems, which produce a
very high quality effluent. During the 2008 cruise ship season,
20 of the 31 large cruise ships that call on Alaska discharged
in state waters and were covered under the state's general
permit. Under the terms of the permit, 206 effluent samples
were taken, each of which was analyzed to determine the
concentration of 9 different parameters. She noted that DEC is
most concerned about the following four parameters: ammonia,
copper, nickel, and zinc. Of 824 data points, the interim
permit limits were exceeded in 36 instances, which amount to
about 4 percent. The most frequent parameter that exceeded the
limits was for ammonia, 21 of the 31 samples. Ms. Tomich Kent
then related that there were 563 instances in which the same
four parameters for the stricter long-term permits in 2008 were
exceeded. The aforementioned relates that about 68 percent of
the data points would exceed the long-term effluent limits. The
long-term effluent limits, she clarified, are based on the water
quality standards.
MS. TOMICH KENT then expressed the need to understand the
effects of the cruise ship discharges on Alaska's waters. In
order to do so, the quality of the wastewater that's discharged
must be reviewed as well as the dilution to which the wastewater
is subject when it hits the receiving water body. The
aforementioned information is used to estimate whether the
wastewater would cause exceedances of the water quality
standards in the receiving water body. A few years ago, DEC
created a science advisory panel to review the results of a
field study the EPA conducted in 2001. The EPA was reviewing
the impact of discharges on Alaska waters when the vessel is
under way. The science panel determined, she relayed, that when
a typical large cruise ship is moving at a minimum speed of six
knots, the wastewater discharge is subject to tremendous
dilution. If the vessel is discharging at 200 cubic meters per
hour, the dilution factor is 50,000. Therefore, the science
panel concluded that the wastewater would almost instantaneously
meet the water quality standards in the receiving water body.
MS. TOMICH KENT noted that during the last legislative session,
the legislature directed DEC to evaluate how treated cruise ship
effluent mixes with and dilutes in the receiving waters. This
past season the study was conducted in Skagway in conjunction
with an EPA research vessel. An interim report was provided to
the legislature in January. In summary, the study was designed
to collect field data in order to calculate the dilution that
occurs to wastewater when discharged through the worst case
scenarios, which is from a stationary vessel into a confined
receiving environment with very limited flushing. The results
of the study were mixed, she stated. Under certain assumptions
water quality standards would be met in the receiving water
within 15 meters of the vessel and under other assumptions a
greater distance from the vessel would be required to achieve
the water quality standards. Therefore, while the work isn't
complete, it suggests that in certain worst case scenarios
mixing zones may not be appropriate for vessels that are moored.
MS. TOMICH KENT confirmed that DEC is also reviewing wastewater
treatment technologies. She related that DEC isn't aware of
treatment systems that would produce effluent meeting water
quality standards without the use of mixing zones and that are
readily available to be installed on all vessels by the 2010
season. She noted that there are shore-based technologies that
can achieve the aforementioned. Currently, DEC is investigating
the cruise lines efforts to reduce ammonia, copper, nickel, and
zinc in their wastewater effluent. The cruise lines are
reviewing potential source reduction and evaluating what types
of products brought on board the vessel that might contain those
substances and whether those can be reduced. The cruise lines
are also reviewing new treatment technologies. Ms. Tomich Kent
highlighted that DEC has retained a consultant to evaluate new
and emerging technologies that could potentially be installed on
cruise ships to meet the water quality standards at the point of
discharge. A draft report is available for review and has been
posted on DEC's web site. Tomorrow there will be a wastewater
treatment technology workshop in Juneau at which there are
expected to be national and international participants. The
information obtained from the aforementioned workshop will
further refine the draft report. The hope, she relayed, is to
issue a final report by mid April.
8:35:05 AM
MS. TOMICH KENT pointed out that in light of HB 134, DEC looked
at the existing regulations. Currently, there are regulations
that allow other non-cruise ship permittees to apply for a
mixing zone with their permit. The regulations include a 19-
part test that must be met prior to DEC authorizing a mixing
zone. The aforementioned test includes a requirement that the
effluent is first treated to remove, reduce, and disperse the
pollutants using the most effective, technologically, and
economically feasible methods. The regulations also include an
anti-degradation policy that requires the use of "methods of
pollution prevention, control, and treatment found by the
department to be the most effective and reasonable." The
aforementioned policy also requires that wastes and other
substances to be discharged "be treated and controlled to ensure
to achieve the highest statutory and regulatory requirements."
MS. TOMICH KENT explained that if mixing zones were allowed, DEC
would modify the cruise ship wastewater discharge general permit
to include mixing zones where appropriate. She noted that any
proposed permit modifications require public notice and review.
She related that mixing zones may be prohibited in some areas
and only allowed in other areas under conditions that would
fully protect aquatic life and other uses of Alaska's waters.
Furthermore, a modified permit would still require the use of
best available treatment technologies. She mentioned that
current water quality regulations prohibit backsliding in
treatment technology or decreases in effluent quality.
Therefore, a change in the rule that would allow mixing zones
wouldn't allow a cruise ship to remove the high level of
treatment technology that is already on board nor could they
reduce the quality of the effluent they produce. She related
that every five years when the general permit is reviewed, DEC
must reevaluate what comprises best available treatment
technologies. Any renewed permits are appropriately modified to
reflect any new, commercially available treatment technologies.
She noted that HB 134 has no fiscal impact for DEC.
8:37:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER posed a scenario in which HB 134 passed
as written and DEC learns at the aforementioned workshop of new
technology that is cost effective and meets the requirements of
the initiative. In such a situation, she asked if DEC could
require the use of such technology.
MS. TOMICH KENT replied yes.
8:38:51 AM
JOHN BINKLEY, President, Alaska Cruise Association, related
support for HB 134. The purpose of HB 134, he opined, is to
correct an error made in the initiative. Therefore, he
characterized the legislation as a technical amendment that
actually carries out the will of the people. Through the public
record and statements by the initiative sponsors it was very
clear that the intent of the permitting provision of the
initiative was to level the playing field. In fact, initiative
sponsor Joe Geldhof said, "This would make the cruise industry
adhere to the same pollution standards as fisheries,
municipalities, and gas and oil companies." He then offered a
further quote by Gershon Cohen, one of the primary writers of
this provision: "If passed, the new initiative will level the
economic and environmental playing field between the cruise ship
industry and other major dischargers of polluted waste into
Alaska waters." The aforementioned is exactly what HB 134 would
accomplish.
8:40:57 AM
MR. BINKLEY offered his understanding that HB 134 gives the
authority [regarding permitting decisions] to DEC to make
decisions as it's very difficult to legislative complicated
permitting issues. He opined that those in the cruise industry
have complete confidence in DEC and the permitting process. In
conclusion, he urged the swift passage of HB 134.
8:42:55 AM
CHIP THOMA, President, Responsible Cruising in Alaska (RCA),
began by informing the committee that yesterday DEC issued a
draft feasibility study on reducing the concentrations of
dissolved metals and ammonia in large passenger ships. He
provided that report as well as written testimony from Dr. Cohen
to the committee. Mr. Thoma then turned to the amendments to
the initiative and informed the committee that there was an
amendment to remove the ocean rangers' provision last year, but
that failed in the House. Furthermore, in 2001 House Bill 260
occurred in special session because the legislature wasn't able
to pass legislation that year. Mr. Thoma related that the
Anchorage Daily News has always supported the initiative and is
trying the best it can to develop a compromise. He related
agreement with yesterday's editorial in the Anchorage Daily
News. Mr. Thoma then directed the committee's attention to the
executive summary of the feasibility study, which specifies that
more information is needed, which is what the conference
tomorrow will accomplish. The feasibility study says:
"However, this draft study finds that technologies exist in
land-based applications that appear to be able to treat the
pollutants (ammonia, nickel, copper, or zinc) to the necessary
levels for discharge." Mr. Thoma stressed that he is only
interested in ammonia and copper since those are the pollutants
that impact marine life and anadromous salmon. He related his
satisfaction that the sewage, air, and other areas being
regulated are being done well. The two most promising systems
are reverse osmosis (RO) and aerobic biological
oxidation/nitrification (MBR), both of which would likely
provide the adaptable systems to achieve the limits.
MR. THOMA then turned to Dr. Cohen's written testimony,
specifically paragraph three where it states: "By definition,
the State's WQS represent the best scientific information
regarding the protection of aquatic life." He then highlighted
paragraph four of Dr. Cohen's testimony, which states: "Mixing
zones are not based on biological science or toxicology; they
are engineering-based risk analyses ...." Page 2, paragraph
five of Dr. Cohen's written testimony says, "Poor performance by
other discharges does not justify allowing the cruise lines to
seek the lowest common denominator of waste treatment. It is
important to note that many of their 'peers' are using equipment
designed in the 1950's, built in the 1970s, ...." Mr. Thoma
then highlighted page 2, paragraph four, in which Dr. Cohen
says, "... we heard the same cry from this industry when Alaska
demanded they do a better job of removing fecal bacteria from
their waste streams. They said such performance was impossible.
... Today, two thirds of the fleet that comes to Alaska has
these improved technologies on board." Page 3 of Dr. Cohen's
testimony specifies, "The authorization of mixing zones in
fundamentally illogical. Our oceans are finite and putting more
pollutants into our waters must at some point result in
deleterious impacts on our fisheries." Mr. Thoma reiterated
that tomorrow's conference will address the available
technologies and the cost to cure cruise ship discharges.
MR. THOMA then paraphrased from his written testimony, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The RCA is an advocacy group that helped win the 2006
initiative measure on cruise ship pollution, fair
taxes, and consumer protection. This initiative
passed 52-48%. 82,000 Alaskans voted yes.
The Alaska cruise law has been a great success for
state taxes, revenue sharing, capital project in
cruise ports, pollution controls, monitoring by Ocean
Rangers, and passenger consumer protection.
To address HB 134, my helpful comment is that the
legislation is premature and likely unnecessary. Many
ships in the Alaska cruise fleet are already meeting
our Water Quality Standards on both ammonia & copper,
those discharged substances that most harm anadromous
salmon and marine life.
I recently reviewed the Notices of Violations (NOV's)
issued by DEC for 2009 cruise ship discharges, and was
amazed to find that ¾ of the fleet were not cited for
any metals violations, but that 5 of the 7 metals
violators are Princess ships. I believe the copper
problem has now been identified: those high discharges
are centered in OLDER ships, like the Princes fleet,
whose copper plumbing is leaching into treated
discharge water. Dissolved copper is a big problem:
it never goes away, it builds up in the water, and
dis-orients returning salmon. But most other ships
have solved the on-board copper problem, by using
st
flex-hose plastic plumbing, a 21 century fix for a
th
20 century problem.
8:48:47 AM
MR. THOMA continued:
Rather than get into details of ship plumbing and on-
board water-making machinery, suffice it to say that
copper pipes leach, and miles and tons of copper pipe
leach a lot. Copper leaching from cruise ship
plumbing will be discussed thoroughly tomorrow at
DEC's 2009 conference on new technologies. I hope you
can attend.
The gold sheet in your packet lists the different
copper and ammonia-removing processes that will be
discussed by industry and DEC, for both effectiveness
and cost. This removal technology is improving at a
very rapid pace, pioneered by the need for absolutely
clean water in US computer manufacture. I'm confident
that copper can soon be removed from all cruise ship
discharges. That's why HB 134 is premature, because
solutions are close at hand. DEC and the cruise
industry will start solving them, tomorrow, here in
Juneau.
Regarding ammonia on board ships, the sole source is
urine. Ammonia removal has been achieved, and this
technology is readily available. Ironically, the
relatively high ammonia counts are likely due to low-
flow toilet systems on some ships, where little water
is used to flush. Since water dissolves urine and
ammonia to manageable levels, I am also confident that
all ammonia problems will be solved on-board, as most
ships in the Alaska fleet are doing right now.
In conclusion, HB 134 is premature, because copper &
ammonia discharge problems will be solved soon, with
science, funding, and plastic plumbing. The cruise
passengers want clean ships. Alaska subsistence,
commercial & sport users want clean ships that take no
chances to harm Alaska fish & marine resources. We
should all agree to fully protect clean, marine
waters, by statute.
The cruise laws passed in 2006 accomplish that.
However, HB 134, the Princess Pollution bill, rolls
back those protections and allows potentially harmful
discharges. Also, [HB] 134 would primarily exempt one
cruise line from the water quality standards being met
by most of the 28 ships in Alaska fleet. HB 134 thus
financially penalizes those who make discharge
improvements, and now comply with Alaska cruise law.
Finally, Alaskans want these discharge problems solved
on board the cruise ships, not mixing in our pristine
waters.
MR. THOMA, in response to Representative Harris, clarified that
his statement referring to HB 134 as the Princess Pollution bill
is his opinion. He specified that [his statement] is based on
the notices of violations, which are issued by DEC. He then
pointed out that the committee members' packets should also
include a document entitled "Key Disciplines" that is a list of
sensor devices that are utilized with both medical and marine
applications. The aforementioned is the type of equipment
needed for many of the cruise ships.
8:52:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked whether any of the land-based
technologies are being used in Alaska.
MR. THOMA said that he would find that out tomorrow. However,
he noted that Oasis Environmental consultants with DEC are very
familiar with [the land-based technologies].
8:52:59 AM
BOB WEINSTEIN, Mayor, City of Ketchikan, related the City of
Ketchikan's support for HB 134. He noted that in October 2008
Ketchikan's City Counsel passed a resolution which requested
legislation to modify, based on science, the standards governing
the discharge of cruise ship wastewater. He related his
understanding that HB 134 is designed to remove an arbitrary
standard established by the initiative process and allow it to
be replaced by a scientific standard. The principal public
focus of the initiative, he reminded members, was on a $50 head
tax not on an arcane environmental-related provision. Mr.
Weinstein opined that water quality standards should be
established by the application of principles of sound science
not by the application of politics. While Mr. Weinstein said he
respected the initiative process, he highlighted that the
founding fathers of the state provided for an amendment or
repeal of an initiative after two years. If environmental
standards were established in a similarly punitive manner, by
initiative, for the oil, fishing, and other industries, Alaska
would hardly have any industry at all. "The application of the
standard imposed by initiative, in the absence of practical and
readily available technology, will result in cruise vessels
traveling outside state waters for discharge in federal waters.
This will result in either less visits or shorter visits to port
communities like Ketchikan, with adverse economic impacts upon
us," he said. In conclusion, Mr. Weinstein related his
observation that the cruise industry has made great improvements
and significant investments in technology to improve water and
air quality standards without the initiative. This legislation,
by removing an arbitrary standard, will allow DEC to do its job:
to protect water quality in state waters. He urged support for
HB 134.
8:57:12 AM
WAYNE STEVENS, President/CEO, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce,
related the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce's support of the
legislature's efforts to amend the point of discharge standard
governing cruise ship wastewater permits. To that end, the
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce has adopted the aforementioned
as one of its top five priorities and urges the adoption of HB
134. Furthermore, the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce asks
that the state apply the best available data and technology when
setting standards for cruise ship wastewater discharge permits.
The DEC, he pointed out, holds cruise ships and the state's
ferries to a different standard than every other discharger in
Alaska. He further pointed out that this new permit measures
effluent at the point of discharge rather than allowing a
dilution zone, which every other state allows and Alaska's
statutes contemplate. Moreover, this permit measure is a
different standard than what is required for coastal
communities, the fishing industry, or oil platforms in Cook
Inlet. Mr. Stevens said, "We strongly urge the legislature to
give due consideration to modifying the standards governing the
discharge of our ... cruise ship wastewater for a lower level
based on science that will continue to protect aquatic life and
the environment but will not be technologically and financially
unreasonable or impractical." He echoed earlier testimony that
if the cruise ship industry has to comply with statutes of this
permit, cruise ships will have to hold their wastewater
discharge until outside of Alaska waters. The aforementioned
will result in a shortened time in port and may result in fewer
ports of call, both of which may negatively impact Alaska
businesses and port communities. He suggested that small
businesses that offer services to tour-related businesses may
well go out of business without the suggested modifications.
Although voters were told that cruise ships would be held to the
same [discharge] standard as every other industrial and
municipal discharger and no new permitting program was
necessary, the permit issued by DEC holds the cruise ships to a
much different standard. Mr. Stevens highlighted that Alaska's
water quality standards contemplate the use of dilution factors,
such as mixing zones or short-term variances. According to DEC,
without mixing zones wastewater would have to be treated to the
point at which it could serve as a source of drinking water
before discharge. The aforementioned isn't feasible in Alaska
or anywhere else. Sewage treatment plants, seafood processors
in Alaska couldn't operate without mixing zones, which is also
true for cruise ships, he opined. Alaska should hold cruise
ships to the same standard as coastal communities, he said.
Furthermore, it's not in the state's best interest to shorten
the time cruise visitors have ashore or to force the elimination
of some ports of call. In conclusion, Mr. Stevens highlighted
that plastic pipe comes from oil and gas, and therefore if
copper pipes are eliminated and replaced with plastic that would
seem to infer support for additional drilling.
9:01:21 AM
JENNIFER GIBBINS, Executive Director, Prince William
Soundkeeper, began by relating that the mission of the Prince
William Soundkeeper is to protect water quality in Prince
William Sound. The board and membership of the Prince William
Soundkeeper is comprised of residents of all five communities in
Prince William Sound. She opined that the voters weren't
confused when they passed this initiative. The intent is to
protect the water upon which the state's environment, culture,
and economy depend. She stressed that the most important
message is that this can be done. Ms. Gibbins then reminded the
committee that Prince William Sound is still recovering from the
effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Furthermore, Alaska has
recently had its first warning about the consumption of fish.
The metals at issue are serious and their accumulation in the
environment should be taken very seriously. "Pollution, after
all, is pollution," she said.
MS. GIBBINS opined that HB 134 isn't a small or insignificant
change to the law. She characterized HB 134 as premature. The
[initiative] standards can be met, and therefore she suggested
that the committee's discussions would be best spent focusing on
how to motivate industry to comply. She related she asked John
Binkley and Bruce Bustamante what the cruise industry has done
since the initiative to comply and they couldn't answer. Ms.
Gibbins informed the committee that in addition to being an
environmentalist, she serves on the local chamber of commerce
and has a background in destination marketing for the
hospitality industry. She opined that she supports the tourism
industry, and doesn't believe the state should abandon the
standards that set Alaska apart. Perhaps the new technology
would make it possible to comply by 2010 or perhaps the industry
needs more time, she remarked. She then indicated that the head
tax could be used to incentivize the cruise industry to comply.
9:05:10 AM
STAN STEVENS testified in support of HB 134, which he opined
protects the state's water quality standards by allowing DEC to
still monitor the cruise ships and maintain the best available
technology through sound science. The cruise ships have brought
their air and water quality standards to a level that's better
than that in the state's coastal communities and other vessel
users. There are many vessels, he pointed out, that aren't
meeting a lot of these standards. He opined that HB 134 allows
realistic regulations while maintaining a clean marine
environment. In conclusion, Mr. Stevens applauded the sponsor
of HB 134 as it maintains the state's water quality standards
and solves a difficult problem.
9:06:40 AM
KURT HARDCASTLE, Commercial Fisherman, Taku River Red, informed
the committee that he is a marine engineer and has worked with
marine sanitation systems from Mexico to Alaska and Hawaii. He
noted that he also has a bit of experience in the marine
environment and the discharges that are involved. The cruise
ship industry has its work cut out for it, he opined. With
regard to discharges, Mr. Hardcastle said that [the concern]
isn't the concentration of the discharges but rather the volume
of them. The volume of discharge is 1 million per season,
possibly twice a day in Southeast Alaska waters. The
aforementioned is more than the entire State of Alaska
discharging in Southeast Alaska waters.
MR. HARDCASTLE related that he has been, in, around, and on
cruise ships for many years. In fact, he noted that he has
worked in the cruise ship industry for about four years.
Furthermore, he said that he has witnessed the discharge and
believes that some cruise ships discharge within reason while
others he would question due to the three to four foot high foam
bubble that smells like sewage. He reiterated that the concern
is the volume of the discharge. Mr. Hardcastle referred to the
January 2009 edition of Alaska's Economic Trends, which lists
commercial fishing as the stabilizing influence on Alaska's
economy during the upcoming economic storm. He said that he
isn't opposed to HB 134, but would like the committee to
consider the volume of the discharge and avoid jeopardizing a
food source that is shipped outside the state.
9:11:06 AM
KAREN HESS, Owner, River Adventures, related her support for HB
134 and noted that the committee packet should include a letter
from her. She then relayed that two years ago she was very
involved in the initiative, particularly the disclosure
statement. When signatures for the initiative were first
gathered, she had a conversation with a signature gatherer
regarding concerns with the disclosure statement of the
initiative. The signature gatherer said that if there are
problems with the disclosure statement, the legislature will fix
it if the initiative passes. Ms. Hess then informed the
committee that the 2010 cruise ship itineraries are being
finalized now. She indicated that HB 134 would allow DEC to
implement whatever new technology or program and mandate it for
the ships, and thus the ships can plan their itineraries and
continue to come to Alaska. She concluded by urging passage of
HB 134.
9:14:16 AM
CHRIS ANDERSON, Co-Owner, Glacier BrewHouse and Orso, stated his
support for HB 134. As one of the largest sellers of seafood in
a restaurant environment in Anchorage, he said he understands
the need for a clean, safe marine environment. However, he
expressed concern over the potential loss of the cruse ship
industry, which could adversely impact his restaurant and
employees. Therefore, Mr. Anderson requested support for HB 134
and that everyone work together to ensure Alaska continues to
have a clean, safe, and growing visitor industry.
9:15:49 AM
ROBERT SHEER, Owner, Great Alaskan Lumberjack Show, told the
committee that living in Ketchikan with its close proximity to
the marine environment and being in the tourism industry for the
last 10 years afforded him the opportunity to access certain
governing rules and regulations of the industry. He opined that
there was great prejudice in crafting the head tax initiative,
which had unintended consequences for the tourism industry. The
language of the [initiative] overstepped what were areas
governed by DEC. The impacts to the [tourism] industry could
result in the loss of thousands of jobs and tens of millions of
dollars over time. He informed the committee that he, for his
business alone, pays in excess of $120,000 in local real estate
and sales taxes. Furthermore, [the Great Alaskan Lumberjack
Show] employs up to 35 individuals with a payroll of over
$700,000. As an owner of an Alaskan tourism business, Mr. Sheer
related his support for HB 134.
9:19:10 AM
SHAUNA LEE, Manager, Great Alaskan Lumberjack Show, related that
members should already have a letter from her in support of HB
134. This legislation will allow the cruise ship industry to
conduct business in a scientifically reasonable way. The cruise
industry has made great strides in cleaning its emissions
standards to some of the highest in the world. Therefore,
whatever can be done to make the industry feel welcome is of the
utmost importance to the economy, particularly the economy of
Southeast Alaska. By requiring the cruise ship industry to meet
standards that are impossible to meet at this time, the state is
raising a barrier to an industry that's supporting many
Southeast Alaska towns.
9:20:08 AM
LEN LAURANCE, Marketing Consultant, explained that he represents
companies that provide shore excursions to cruise ship
passengers. These companies include Tae Kwon Air, Alaska
Rainforest Sanctuary, Alaska Canopy Adventures, Seahorse
Ventures, and Experience Alaska Tours. Collectively the
aforementioned companies employ 225 people. The aforementioned
companies urge passage of HB 134 as they are very sensitive to
the environment and place environmental concerns before anything
else. Over the last 10 years, the cruise ship industry has made
great strides in the handling of wastewater. Currently, the
cruise ship industry is trying to meet standards that aren't
based on science. This legislation, HB 134, he surmised, would
allow DEC to enforce wastewater discharge on a scientific basis.
Therefore, he urged passage of HB 134.
9:21:41 AM
KATHY WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), related support for HB 134. She noted that AML passed a
resolution that requested modification of the standards
governing the discharge of cruise ship wastewater. The
discussion that took place during the debate of that resolution
centered on the belief that the process should be handled
through DEC, she related. The discussion also focused on the
need, particularly in these hard economic times, to review
anything that might inhibit municipalities from having
businesses or industries that help communities survive.
9:23:57 AM
JEREMY GIEZER, Member, Board of the Alaska Travel Industry
Association (ATIA) - Juneau Chapter, related that the Juneau
Chapter of ATIA, which is nearly 70 local tourism and tourism-
related businesses in Juneau, is in support of HB 134. He
mentioned that the statewide chapter of ATIA has moved a letter
of support for HB 134. The organization believes that the
experts should do the job, and thus it's a matter of giving the
control to DEC to regulate cruise ship discharge. The concern
is that if the law is allowed to stand as it is today, it will
negatively affect business and the amount of business that
occurs. He pointed out that just because the technology is
available, it doesn't mean that cruise lines will necessarily
implement that technology in Alaska waters. Some of the cruise
ships, he opined, will opt to [discharge] outside Alaska waters,
which will reduce the hours in port and even eliminate some port
calls. The aforementioned should be considered, he opined.
9:25:59 AM
JASON BRUNE, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
(RDC), related that RDC is in support of HB 134. He then
reminded the committee that the RDC is a statewide, nonprofit,
membership-funded organization founded in 1975. The purpose of
RDC is to link the diverse interests of its membership together
to encourage a strong, diversified private sector in Alaska
while expanding the state's economic base through the
responsible development of the state's natural resources,
including tourism resources. He opined that setting standards
for discharges through the initiative process, regardless of the
industry, isn't appropriate. What was put in place by this
initiative would have precluded the discharge of tap water from
Anchorage, Fairbanks, or any other port community. As
legislators, new investment in the state should be encouraged by
allowing reasonable and attainable standards for all industries.
By correcting this error, DEC will have the tools to use the
best available science, as they do with all agencies in the
state, to establish safe discharge limits. Mr. Brune concluded
by encouraging the committee vote in favor of 2009.
9:28:03 AM
MR. BINKLEY said that HB 134 will simply allow DEC to make
discharge determinations based on the best science and
technology available. The industry, he assured members,
embraces new technology as well as decisions based on science.
He related that in the late 1990s and early 2000s the Alaska
Cruise Association worked closely with the scientific panel Ms.
Tomich Kent mentioned earlier. In fact, [the Alaska Cruise
Association] invested funds based on the findings of the
scientific panel and decisions by the legislature. The industry
has invested over $200 million to place the best available
technology on the ships. This summer the industry worked
closely with DEC and EPA on further scientific testing in
Skagway Harbor. Furthermore, [the Alaska Cruise Association] is
working with DEC on the technology conference to be held
tomorrow. He noted that virtually all of the [cruise] lines
will be represented at the conference. He emphasized that it's
inappropriate to have standards based on junk science. Mr.
Binkley, again, encouraged the committee to move HB 134 forward
as it simply allows DEC to do its job.
CO-CHAIR HERRON closed public testimony with the exception of
allowing those who've testified to respond to questions from the
committee members.
9:30:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER requested comment regarding Ms. Gibbins'
testimony that Alaska received its first warning on fish
consumption in the state. She also requested comment regarding
Ms. Gibbins' earlier comment that the industry hasn't done
anything in order to comply with the initiative.
MS. TOMICH KENT answered that although she is not the director
in charge of fish advisory, there was one fish consumption alert
issued for large flat white fish. She recalled that the
contaminant was mercury. She offered to obtain the specific
information on the warning for the committee. Regarding what
the industry has done [since the passage of the initiative]; Ms.
Tomich Kent explained that since a compliance schedule was
placed in the permit, the regulations on compliance specify the
need to do some things along the way. Therefore, the industry
was asked to submit a source reduction evaluation and plan to
DEC. The aforementioned required the cruise industry to review
the potential sources of the four contaminants of concern. The
companies covered under the permit have submitted the
aforementioned plans to the department. The companies are also
required to provide the department with an annual progress
report on source reduction as well as new technologies should
the companies find that source reduction isn't sufficient to
meet the water quality standards at the end of the pipe.
9:33:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether Ms. Tomich Kent would feel
comfortable in saying that the cruise industry has made a good
faith effort to comply to date.
MS. TOMICH KENT said that it's been a mixed response as some
cruise lines have done more than others.
9:33:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked whether there is anything in HB 134
that decreases DEC's ability to monitor, assess, and evaluate
the quality of the discharge at the pipe.
MS. TOMICH KENT answered that nothing in HB 134 prohibits DEC's
ability to establish protective permits, monitor compliance with
those permits, and nothing would change the department's
approach to technology. She clarified that cruise ships would
be required to use the best available technology and DEC would
be required to review that every year when it reviews the
permit. Furthermore, DEC would maintain existing tools used
with permittees to ensure the protection of water quality and
aquatic life. In further response to Representative Harris,
Mr. Tomich Kent confirmed that HB 134 doesn't contain anything
that should "scare" Alaskans regarding water quality.
9:35:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked whether existing land-based
technologies are in use in Alaska.
MS. TOMICH KENT said that she wasn't sure whether they're used
on the shore-based facilities in Alaska. She mentioned that
perhaps a few small packaging plants may use the reverse
osmosis. In further response to Representative Millett, Ms.
Tomich Kent related that almost all of the permits issued for
the wastewater discharges from the community systems in Alaska
rely upon mixing zones to achieve water quality standards.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT inquired as to the mixing zone
measurement for municipalities and other areas.
MS. TOMICH KENT explained that it varies from community to
community. Each community is reviewed on a site specific basis
and the volumes, concentrations, and flushing are reviewed for
each facility.
9:36:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed interest in hearing about the
science that was used for the original initiative.
9:37:36 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ recalled earlier testimony that cruise lines
employ advanced water discharge systems that produce a high
quality effluent and there isn't the technology available today
to achieve the standards proposed in the initiative. She asked
if that's indeed the case.
MS. TOMICH KENT said that the advanced wastewater treatment
systems were designed primarily to treat fecal coliform.
Although these advanced wastewater treatment systems are very
effective at treating fecal coliform, they are less effective at
treating the ammonia and metals that are being targeted today.
In further response to Co-Chair Munoz, Ms. Tomich Kent said
there are technologies that have been used in a laboratory and
in shore-based facilities, but haven't yet been sized, designed,
constructed, installed, and operated within the confined space
of a cruise ship.
9:39:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed out that the feasibility study
from Oasis Environmental says that the available land-based
technologies "appear to be able to treat" and "it's possible"
[to treat the pollutants]. He pointed out that the feasibility
study also says that using reverse osmosis "may be the solution
that works". However, some of the testimony seems to imply that
the science and technology to achieve [the standards in the
regulations] is available.
9:40:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to what incentives are
available for this technology. She further inquired as to why
technology hasn't been applied, if it does exist.
MS. TOMICH KENT opined that the development of wastewater
technology takes time, and it also takes time to adapt it to
various applications. For example, in a laboratory clean water
can be produced from almost any contaminated water. However,
implementing the aforementioned in a very confined space such as
a cruise ship would be difficult. She related her belief that
there are incentives for cruise ship companies and others to
continue to improve wastewater treatment technology.
9:42:04 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ moved to report the proposed CS for HB 134,
Version 26-LS0570\E, Bullard, 2/16/09, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA objected.
9:42:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA offered her understanding that although
the cruise ship industry is under pressure in relation to the
upcoming season, there's no hurry when one takes into
consideration the importance of the waters of Alaska. She
expressed the need for the legislature to take time to ensure
that all the information is gathered and [the legislature] is
truly responsible. Representative Cissna urged the committee to
hold HB 134 in order to obtain more information.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she has similar concerns, although
she said she may vote in favor of HB 134 when it's before the
full body. She expressed interest in hearing the results of
tomorrow's conference, and opined that it's appropriate to wait
to hear the results.
9:44:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS opined that nothing that comes out of that
conference will change the intent of HB 134 because any
technology available can and should be implemented if it's
beneficial to the environment and the overall operations of the
cruise ships in the state. He clarified that HB 134 does
provide DEC the ability to do its job, which the original
initiative should've achieved. Representative Harris urged
passage of HB 134.
9:45:44 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Keller, Millett,
Harris, Herron, and Munoz voted in favor of reporting the
proposed CS for HB 134, Version 26-LS0570\E, Bullard, 2/16/09,
out of committee. Representatives Cissna and Gardner voted
against it. Therefore, CSHB 134(CRA) was reported out of the
House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee by a
vote of 5-2.
9:46:15 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:46 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Fiscal Note HB121-CED-CRA-02-13-09.pdf |
HCRA 2/17/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| Fiscal Note HB134-DEC-WQ-2-13-2009.pdf |
HCRA 2/17/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 134 |
| HB121_FNSB_letter of support_Herron.pdf |
HCRA 2/17/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| HB 121 Sponsor Statement & Sectional Analysis.doc |
HCRA 2/17/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| HB121 AML Resolution in Support.pdf |
HCRA 2/17/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| HB 134 DEC Cruise Ship Tech Conf..pdf |
HCRA 2/17/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 134 |
| HB134ResponsibleCruisinginAlaska2.17.09Letter.PDF |
HCRA 2/17/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 134 |
| HB134ResponsibleCruisinginAKLTR.2.2.09.PDF |
HCRA 2/17/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 134 |
| HB134NYTimes2.15.09.PDF |
HCRA 2/17/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 134 |
| HB134 Gershon Cohen Testimonry. 2.17.09.doc |
HCRA 2/17/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 134 |