Legislature(2011 - 2012)BUTROVICH 205
02/06/2012 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview(s): Ballot Initiative 11acmp - Establishing the Alaska Coastal Management Program | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 6, 2012
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
SENATE JUDICIARY
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Joe Paskvan
Senator John Coghill
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
SENATE JUDICIARY
Senator Lesil McGuire
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Beth Kerttula
Senator Kathy Giessel
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW(S): BALLOT INITIATIVE 11ACMP - ESTABLISHING THE ALASKA
COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
DOUGLAS GARDNER, Director
Legal Services
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the overview of ballot initiative
11ACMP - establishing the Alaska Coastal Management Program.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the overview
of ballot initiative 11ACMP - establishing the Alaska Coastal
Management Program.
SUSAN BELL, Commissioner
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during the overview of ballot initiative 11ACMP -
establishing the Alaska Coastal Management Program.
JOHN BOUCHER, Senior Economist
Office of the Director
Office of Management & Budget (OMB)
Office of the Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during the overview of ballot initiative 11ACMP -
establishing the Alaska Coastal Management Program.
BRUCE M. BOTELHO, Chair
Alaska Sea Party: Restoring Coastal Management
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As one of the ballot initiative's joint
prime sponsors, responded to questions during the overview of
ballot initiative 11ACMP - establishing the Alaska Coastal
Management Program.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director
Central Office
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during the overview of
ballot initiative 11ACMP - establishing the Alaska Coastal
Management Program.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:26 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the joint meeting of the House and
Senate Judiciary Standing Committees to order at 1:03 p.m.
Present at the call to order from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee were Representatives Gatto, Thompson, Holmes, Keller,
and Pruitt; Representatives Gruenberg and Lynn arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Present from the Senate Judiciary
Standing Committee were Senators French, Wielechowski, Paskvan,
and Coghill. Representative Kerttula and Senator Giessel were
also in attendance.
^Overview(s): Ballot Initiative 11ACMP - Establishing the
Alaska Coastal Management Program
Overview(s): Ballot Initiative 11ACMP - Establishing the Alaska
Coastal Management Program
1:03:33 PM
CHAIR FRENCH [announced that the only order of business would be
an overview of ballot initiative 11ACMP - establishing the
Alaska Coastal Management Program].
CHAIR GATTO explained that the committees wouldn't be proposing
amendments to 11ACMP but would instead just be discussing it for
purposes of understanding it.
1:05:36 PM
DOUGLAS GARDNER, Director, Legal Services, Legislative Legal and
Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), noting that
11ACMP would add a new Chapter 41 - Alaska Coastal Management
Program - to Title 46 [which pertains to water, air, energy, and
environmental conservation,] explained that 11ACMP's proposed
AS 46.41.010 would establish within the Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development (DCCED) an Alaska Coastal
Policy Board made up of nine public members and the
commissioners of the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC), the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the DCCED. The nine
public members must be appointed from the geographic regions
outlined in proposed subsection (a)(1)(A)-(I); shall serve
three-year staggered terms; and are eligible for reappointment.
Proposed AS 46.41.010 additionally provides for alternate public
members or commissioners to be appointed or designated,
respectively; provides for one public-member co-chair and one
commissioner co-chair to be designated by the policy board;
allows the policy board to recommend that the governor remove a
public member for cause; stipulates that each member shall serve
until a successor is appointed; stipulates that a quorum
consists of five public members and two commissioners, and that
all decisions shall be by a majority vote of the members present
and voting; entitles the public members, or their alternates, to
per diem and travel expenses; and stipulates that administrative
support shall be provided by [the department - defined in
proposed AS 46.41.900(7) as] the DCCED.
MR. GARDNER observed that members' packets contain a spreadsheet
comparing the proposed program with previous programs and past
proposed legislation, and noted that one of the previous
programs fell under the purview of the DNR. Reading portions of
subsections (a)(1)-(7) and (b)(1)-(2) of 11ACMP's proposed
AS 46.41.020, he went on to explain that this section outlines
the powers and duties of the policy board, stipulating [among
other things] that the proposed program must be in conformity
with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, which sets
forth details of what constitutes a qualifying program. He
mentioned that he isn't clear about what's meant by proposed
subsection (b)'s stipulations that the policy board may contract
for necessary services and take any reasonable action necessary
to carry out the provisions of AS 46.41, characterizing these
stipulations as providing for a very broad power.
1:13:39 PM
MR. GARDNER indicated that 11ACMP's proposed AS 46.41.030 would
establish within the DCCED a new division of ocean and coastal
management, and specifies [among other things] that the division
would render all federal consistency determinations and
authorized certifications, and certain state consistency
determinations; would adopt necessary regulations; and would
address the issue of financial assistance for coastal districts.
Reading portions of subsection (a)(1)-(3)(A)-(H) of 11ACMP's
proposed AS 46.41.040, he indicated that [in part] this section
addresses the development of the proposed program, including
stipulating what the aforementioned regulations shall include or
address, such as standards, criteria, processes, and procedures,
for example. He mentioned, however, that he isn't clear about
what kinds of activities would either trigger or be excluded
from the "consistency review" referred to in proposed
AS 46.41.040(a)(3)(B) and (H).
MR. GARDNER referred to 11ACMP's proposed AS 46.41.050, and
relayed that it outlines the objectives with which the proposed
program must be consistent; these objectives are functionally
similar to those of one of the previous programs, though the
proposed program would have three new objectives - outlined in
paragraphs (9), (10), and (11) - and it would also have to
consider the overall quality of the coastal environment for both
this and succeeding generations. He then paraphrased paragraphs
(9)-(11), and, in response to a question, offered his belief
that being consistent with the objectives outlined in proposed
AS 46.41.050 wouldn't require the program to seek
appropriations. Paraphrasing 11ACMP's proposed AS 46.41.060 -
which addresses the development of district coastal management
plans - he indicated that [proposed subsection (a)] mandates
that coastal districts adopt management plans, and then outlines
what those plans must be based upon and what they must entail;
[proposed subsection (b) outlines what's required] in order for
the policy board to approve an initial or amended district plan;
and proposed subsection (c) outlines when an enforceable policy
would be preempted. He observed that proposed AS 46.41.900(11)
and (14) define the terms, "local knowledge" and "scientific
evidence" as those terms are used in proposed
AS 46.41.060(b)(2)(F), but mentioned that he isn't clear about
whether [proposed subsection (b)'s stipulations] would "bleed
into" the types of regulations that the policy board would
adopt.
1:23:37 PM
MR. GARDNER, paraphrasing 11ACMP's proposed AS 46.41.070,
indicated that it establishes a one-year deadline - from when
the proposed program's regulations take effect - for coastal
districts to review their management plan, and, if necessary,
submit a revised one that would comply with those regulations.
Paraphrasing 11ACMP's proposed AS 46.41.080 - addressing
implementation of district plans - he indicated it stipulates
that coastal districts which exercise zoning or other controls
shall implement their management plan themselves, that those
that don't shall have their management plans implemented by the
appropriate state agencies, and that implementation shall be in
accordance with the plan or statement adopted by the district.
Still paraphrasing, he indicated that 11ACMP's proposed
AS 46.41.090 addresses the issues of compliance and enforcement
by stipulating that those entities administering regulations and
controls pertaining to land and water use shall do so in
conformity with a district's management plan, and that it's the
Alaska Superior Court which has enforcement jurisdiction.
MR. GARDNER offered his understanding that the rest of 11ACMP
addresses what he called, "units" in unorganized boroughs that
would be created in order to implement district plans. Proposed
AS 46.41.110 stipulates how coastal-resource service-area
boundaries are to be determined; "there's ... an attempt made to
organize service areas based on the ... regional educational
attendance areas that are defined in AS 14.08.031" he added.
SENATOR COGHILL asked whether that constitutes a new approach to
organizing coastal resource service areas.
1:27:47 PM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency (LAA), said it does not, adding that many of 11ACMP's
provisions addressing this issue track those of [one of the
previous programs] and other, since-repealed, laws.
MR. GARDNER, returning to his presentation and paraphrasing from
11ACMP, indicated that [proposed AS 46.41.120] addresses voting
[related to the organization of] coastal resource service areas,
and involvement by the lieutenant governor [as the state
official responsible for the Division of Elections]; and that
proposed AS 46.41.130 pertains to elected boards of coastal
resource service areas, [addressing their powers, duties,
makeup, and terms, as well as elections, vacancies, recalls, and
per diem and travel expenses]. In response to a question, he
paraphrased proposed AS 46.41.130(h), and surmised from it that
service area board members would receive per diem.
MR. GARDNER, paraphrasing 11ACMP's proposed AS 46.41.140,
relayed that it addresses elections in coastal resource service
areas, stipulating that election costs shall be paid for by the
state and that the elections shall be administered by the
lieutenant governor, and providing him/her with the authority to
promulgate necessary regulations. Referring to 11ACMP's
proposed AS 46.41.150, and noting that it bears similarity to a
provision of one of the previous programs, he relayed that [in
part] it provides a mechanism by which the DCCED could prepare a
district coastal management plan in situations where the voters
fail to approve organizing a coastal resource service area and
certain activity has or will occur. He also noted that
[proposed AS 46.41.150] contains typographical [errors].
MR. GARDNER explained that 11ACMP's proposed AS 46.41.160
creates a process by which a proposed district coastal
management plan can be reviewed by those within the coastal
resource service area prior to the plan's adoption by the
service area board, and stipulates that those within the service
area would have 60 days in which to either [approve] the plan or
enter objections to it or parts of it. Paraphrasing 11ACMP's
proposed 46.41.170, he indicated it stipulates [in subsection
(a)] that a city which is not part of an adjacent coastal
resource service area shall be included in it anyway unless the
city's governing body passes a resolution in opposition; and
specifies [in subsection (b)] that nothing in AS 64.41 restricts
or prohibits cooperative or joint administration of functions
[when such has been agreed upon by] a municipality and a coastal
resource service area.
1:35:15 PM
MR. BULLARD, in response to questions, relayed that although he
isn't sure how the term "municipality" - used in proposed AS
46.41.170(b) - was meant to be applied in 11ACMP, the definition
of that term [in existing AS 01.10.060] includes boroughs; and
indicated that [proposed AS 46.41.170(a)] addresses certain
cities in unorganized boroughs but not such boroughs themselves
as a whole.
MR. GARDNER, paraphrasing 11ACMP's proposed AS 46.41.180,
indicated it stipulates that nothing in proposed AS 46.41 should
be construed to diminish state jurisdiction. In conclusion, he
mentioned that 11ACMP's proposed AS 46.41.900 provides
definitions [of the terms used in 11ACMP]. In response to
questions, he indicated that the court would have to determine
on a case-by-case basis - using a three-part test - whether a
particular piece of proposed legislation is in fact
substantially the same as a particular proposed ballot
initiative; for example, the court would consider whether both
the legislation and the ballot initiative address a complex
issue, whether both have the same general purpose, and whether
both attempt to effectuate that purpose via the same means. He
predicted that because 11ACMP addresses a complex issue, the
legislature would be given more latitude to vary from it.
1:47:37 PM
SUSAN BELL, Commissioner, Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development (DCCED), relayed that for purposes of
implementing 11ACMP's proposed program, certain aspects will
require more work. She explained:
We'll need to address the sequencing of actions to
establish the proposed program. In turn, this can
affect the ... implementation timing and cost. [The]
DCCED will need to acquire expertise related to
setting resource standards and coordinating permitting
with state and federal agencies. The newly-
established board will ... need to resolve some ...
ambiguity about the role of state agencies and
municipalities concerning reviews, monitoring, and
enforcement discussed in the initiative.
Implementation of the initiative is dependent on
several decisions outside of the [DCCED], ... and we
must acknowledge that ... because of the board's role,
there is some inherent uncertainty about the program
at this point. ...
I think it's important to ... discuss how ... the
program does fit in the [DCCED]. First, our agencies
administer and implement a wide array of programs that
impact communities, businesses, nonprofit
organizations, residents, other state agencies, and
many others in the state. The program requires
expertise in board ... support and implementation of
board directives. In addition to the many boards that
we have under the [Division of Corporations, Business,
and Professional Licensing, the DCCED] ... is engaged
with boards whose focus ranges from economic
development, marketing, energy issues, railroad, [and]
public utilities. I also want to point out that
planning, grant administration, and ... interagency
coordination are skill sets of ... [the DCCED].
... [Regarding the issue of] implementation, first,
[the] DCCED will need to secure the funding for
division staff, board travel, meeting costs. And ...
whether an appropriation comes from the legislature
before or after the initiative vote will dictate how
quickly we can implement the program. Next we'll need
to get [the proposed new division of ocean and coastal
management] ... up and running. The division will
certainly carry out many of the administrative tasks
and board support associated with the program, but,
again, there's an area where the board does define the
scope of the program.
COMMISSIONER BELL continued:
... We'll need to reach outside [the DCCED's] ...
current expertise, since the program deals with
setting standards and coordinating permits.
Initially, [the DCCED] ... may develop an RSA
[(reimbursable services agreement)] with other state
resource agencies, contract for services, and/or
recruit from ... other agencies; ... [it's] inherent
in this program ... that we'll need to think [about]
how we would approach that. Initially, the division
staff will be very focused on planning, ... since the
program cannot be implemented until the state program
is established and local plans are approved. We note
that we need to hire project review staff, maybe at a
secondary stage. So, again, back to that sequencing
issue.
1:51:14 PM
Simultaneously, the governor's office will be
selecting board members - and we point out a couple of
items that relate to the timing and selection of board
members. The initiative states that districts will
forward names for appointment by the governor; ... it
breaks the state ... down into regions from which
board members come ..., and names are forwarded from
the districts. If any given region has only districts
that are in organized communities ..., then those
districts can forward names. If a given region has a
mix of districts that are and are not organized
communities, then those that are organized will be
able to forward names, and those that are not will not
be able to do so until the coastal resource service
area elections are conducted. [And] we don't
anticipate any vacancies on the board, but we ... see
some sequencing issues there [as well].
Finally, there's a question of how much program work
should be completed before board confirmation by the
legislature, recognizing that ... board actions could
be vulnerable to a third-party challenge. Once the
board and ... support staff are in place, the business
of developing the program will begin. This is a key
point in time because so much, again, will be
determined by the board. The initiative establishes a
division of [ocean and] coastal management that adopts
regulations, and requires the board to approve the
regulations, ... and [so] the ordinary steps under the
[Administrative Procedure Act] will be subject to some
delay ... until public comment has been gathered.
COMMISSIONER BELL went on to say:
The heart of the coastal management program is the
body of enforceable policies adopted at statewide and
coastal district levels - and ... I point out that ...
[previous] programs here in our state allowed
districts to develop plans that were implemented by
state agencies, [whereas] some other states develop
programs at a state level and [then] allow local
districts to implement them - and these variables are
left to the discretion of the board as they develop
the new program. Once the board sets the path to
pursue, staff will set out to further develop the
program and engage the public - that's a critical
element ... of the federal requirement; we also need
to engage the federal agency with jurisdiction.
1:54:02 PM
COMMISSIONER BELL, in response to a question, noted that the
speed with which necessary funding is provided by the
legislature will affect how quickly the program can be
implemented. Returning to her explanation, she said:
Before the program can fully take effect on federal
lands and federal activities, it must be ... reviewed
and approved by the [federal Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management], and that requires a NEPA
[(National Environmental Policy Act of 1969)] review
... and either an environmental assessment or a full-
blown environmental impact statement [(EIS)]. Once
approved, the program will need to be fully
implemented and the transition within the division
needs to take place, and ... this ... is likely a
juncture where the project review staff would begin to
engage.
COMMISSIONER BELL, in response to another question, offered her
understanding that under 11ACMP, all of the district plans that
were in effect when the previous program ceased would again be
in effect once approved by the board. Continuing on with her
explanation, she said:
While this federal review will not necessarily cost
the state money, it will create a period of
uncertainty the board will have [needed] to have
considered when it approves regulations for the
program. When the program takes effect will matter
greatly. There's also a question about ... the
program's impact on state reviews: will projects with
multiple state permits be required to be reviewed
under the program prior to federal approval? ... In
looking ahead at implementation, some of these things
may be resolved by the board, some of these things may
require discussion with the board and the federal
agency that approves the program. Full program
implementation, including project reviews and local
district planning, will depend on ... some of the
decisions made by the board.
1:58:40 PM
COMMISSIONER BELL suggested that 11ACMP's proposed AS 46.41.080
and proposed AS 46.41.090 require further clarification in that
the former stipulates that implementation shall be carried out
by either a coastal district or state agencies depending on
whether the district exercises zoning or other controls on
resource use, and the latter stipulates that both municipalities
and state agencies shall carry out enforcement. She added:
Finally, the initiative calls for the [the proposed
new division of ocean and coastal management] to
develop and maintain a program of financial assistance
to aid local districts with implementation, and, for
many of the reasons that I've described ... this
afternoon, there is some uncertainty about when the
program would fully kick in.
COMMISSIONER BELL, in conclusion, said:
How the board addresses these types of questions will
determine staffing levels, needed expertise within the
department initially and then subsequently once the
full program's implemented, the level of assistance
the state and the department provide to local
districts, and what appropriations will be necessary
to operate the program effectively. Thank you.
SENATOR COGHILL - noting that under 11ACMP's proposed
AS 46.41.110(d)(1), when an existing regional educational
attendance area (REAA) is divided into coastal resource service
areas, each such service area shall contain at least one first
class city or home rule city - mentioned that he is wondering
whether complying with that provision would even be physically
possible.
2:01:49 PM
JOHN BOUCHER, Senior Economist, Office of the Director, Office
of Management & Budget (OMB), Office of the Governor, after
mentioning that the document in members' packets titled "11ACMP
STATEMENT OF COSTS" was included in the proposed initiative's
petition booklets as required by law, explained that in
producing the estimate of implementation costs, the OMB [sought
input] from the affected state agencies - including the DCCED,
the ADF&G, the DEC, the DNR, and the Division of Elections - and
from staff of the U.S. Department of Commerce's national
program. This estimate, based only on known costs, assumes that
the operation and procedural requirements of 11ACMP's proposed
program would result in most, if not all, of the same costs
associated with the program that existed prior to July 2011, and
highlights the differences between such costs when those
differences were ascertainable.
MR. BOUCHER mentioned that the most notable administrative
difference pertains to the proposed 13-member Alaska Coastal
Policy Board. This proposed board would have broad powers to
establish a program, policies, and/or procedures that could vary
widely from what used to be in place, and any such variances
could also result in actual costs being substantially different
from estimates as well. He indicated that the latter is likely
simply because there are still many unknowns about the proposed
program, such as how often the board will really have to meet,
the level and timing of federal funding, agency-implementation
and administration costs, the extent of necessary coordination
and enforcement efforts, and the level of financial and other
support provided to local districts.
MR. BOUCHER said that estimated costs for 11ACMP's proposed
program come to approximately $5.4 million annually, with $4.7
million being the amount estimated for the previous program, and
$700,000 being the amount estimated for providing administrative
support to the proposed Alaska Coastal Policy Board. Typically,
it can take approximately two years for a coastal management
program to be approved by the federal government, and
approximately three to four more years for it to qualify for
full federal funding, which, in this instance, would be capped
at $2 million. Until the proposed new program becomes fully
eligible for full federal funding, however, the state would be
responsible for all costs, though it is estimated that at least
some federal funding would be forthcoming after the first two
years.
MR. BOUCHER, in response to comments and questions, surmised
that all state funding would be subject to legislative
appropriation; agreed to conduct more research regarding some of
the OMB's estimates; and explained that the aforementioned
$700,000 would address more than just travel costs for the
proposed board, that the OMB derived that number from fiscal
notes accompanying past legislation, and that the OMB's
estimates do take into consideration costs that would be
incurred by the Division of Elections, do not reflect any
potential [lessening] of costs related to starting the proposed
program up, and assume that policy board members would be
meeting in person at each of the four required meetings though
they would only be required to do so for one of those meetings.
COMMISSIONER BELL added that any lessening of costs during
startup would likely be offset by additional costs specifically
related to startup.
MR. BOUCHER concurred, and offered some possible examples of
such. In response to another question, he relayed that the
decisions regarding where the proposed Alaska Coastal Policy
Board shall be located and where it shall hold its meetings have
yet to be made.
2:20:12 PM
BRUCE M. BOTELHO, Chair, Alaska Sea Party: Restoring Coastal
Management, in response to questions and speaking as one of
11ACMP's joint prime sponsors, opined that Alaska needs a
coastal management program because Alaskans need a voice. Under
federal law, states that have an approved coastal management
program in place have the authority to review and approve or
disapprove proposed federal activity in their coastal zones, and
Alaska - until recently - had exercised such authority, and had
done so for well over a generation. This authority is
particularly important given the volume of coastline in Alaska,
and the importance of that coastline to the industries of the
state. Of concern to him, he relayed, is that communities be
provided a voice regarding local [federal] development, but
without a coastal management program in place, neither Alaska
nor its communities have such a voice - they have no right to
review proposed federal activity. In fact, when the previous
program was allowed to sunset, the federal government stopped
submitting its coastal-development proposals for state review
and approval.
MR. BOTELHO referred to the document in members' packets titled,
"11ACMP STATEMENT OF COSTS" and offered his belief that it
overstates the annual cost of 11ACMP's proposed program because
it doesn't reflect any decreasing of costs that would result
during the startup period - such as those related to decreased
staffing levels - and doesn't include board-support costs that
are in line with those of other boards. He offered some
alternative estimates, which he indicated were based on the
previous program and on other boards.
2:28:58 PM
MR. BOTELHO explained that in order to eliminate the need for a
particular developer to have to go to many different agencies
for his/her permits, Alaska's previous coastal management
program had permit coordination as one of its primary goals, and
11ACMP incorporates such permit coordination into its proposed
program. The degree to which that permit coordination
expedites, rather than delays, projects, would, he predicted, be
an element of any discussions that take place regarding 11ACMP.
Again, without an approved coastal management program in place,
neither Alaska nor its communities have any voice regarding
proposed federal activity in Alaska's coastal zones; with such a
program in place in Alaska, the federal government would again
be required to seek state/community approval before commencing
with its projects.
MR. BOTELHO explained that 11ACMP's proposed program would not
constitute a permitting agency. All the permitting powers of
the DEC, the ADF&G, and the DNR would remain with those
agencies, and the DCCED would merely act as a facilitating
agency for the coordination of required permits. So although
there were an array of acceptable, reasonable choices, the joint
prime sponsors chose the DCCED to have purview over 11ACMP's
proposed program because the DCCED has historic ties to local
governments and has administered the grant program to coastal
districts; in the joint prime sponsors' view, the DCCED has the
expertise - in terms of both grant administration and board
management - to perform the required functions.
MR. BOTELHO assured the committees that under 11ACMP's proposed
AS 46.41.090, enforcement of the policy board's lawful orders by
the Alaska Superior Court would only occur after a determination
that an entity [administered regulations or controls] out of
conformity with a district's approved coastal management plan;
and that under 11ACMP's proposed AS 46.41.060(b), in order for
such a plan to have been approved in the first place, it must
[have enforceable policies that among other things,] are not
preempted by federal or state law and do not arbitrarily or
unreasonably restrict a use of state concern. He opined,
therefore, that 11ACMP makes it very clear that other state law
may not be trumped; and then indicated that certain of 11ACMP's
proposed definitions came from the regulations that were in
place under the previous program.
MR. BOTELHO said that without an approved coastal management
program in place, the federal government can - without any state
constraint - act as it pleases with regard to Alaska's coastal
zones. In terms of restoring a local voice, 11ACMP's proposed
program would do so in two ways: by retaining [already-
established] coastal districts, and by requiring policy board
members to come from the various coastal districts of the state.
2:45:22 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Central Office, Division of Elections,
Office of the Lieutenant Governor - after providing information
about the initiative process and its requirements, the
division's work on 11ACMP, the timelines pertaining to 11ACMP,
and the signatures gathered thus far - relayed that the division
is anticipating that there will ultimately be a sufficient
number of valid signatures to include 11ACMP on the primary
ballot in 2012.
2:52:07 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committees, the joint
meeting of the House Judiciary Standing Committee and the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee was adjourned at 2:52 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 11ACMP-StatementOfCosts.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| ACMP Initiative.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJUD Hearing Notice Memo 2-1-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Joint JUD Hearing Notice ACMP.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| ACMP Comparison.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Initiative Laws and Legislative Review.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Initiatives Rep. Johansen Memo.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| ACMP Lt. Governor Memo.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2012 1:00:00 PM |