Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/26/2002 10:40 AM House O&G
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON OIL AND GAS
February 26, 2002
10:40 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Gretchen Guess
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 439
"An Act removing provisions providing an opportunity to petition
for review of proposed consistency determinations under the
Alaska coastal zone management program."
- MOVED HB 439 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 439
SHORT TITLE:COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMNT PROGRAMS&PETITIONS
SPONSOR(S): OIL & GAS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/15/02 2287 (H) STA, RES
02/15/02 2287 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2321 (H) STA REFERRAL REMOVED
02/19/02 2321 (H) O&G REFERRAL ADDED BEFORE RES
02/21/02 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/21/02 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(O&G)
02/26/02 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
TADD OWENS, Executive Director
Resource Development Council (RDC)
121 West Fireweed Lane, Number 250
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 439.
LARRY HOULE, General Manager
Alaska Support Industry Alliance
4220 B Street, Number 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 439.
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association
3305 Arctic, Number 202
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 439.
NANCY WAINWRIGHT, Attorney
13030 Back Road, Number 555
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 439; discussed
problems with DGC and offered a different account of events
related by a testifier at the previous hearing.
PATRICK GALVIN, Director
Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC)
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 11030
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0030
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to HB 439 and a
proposed title change.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-12, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR SCOTT OGAN called the House Special Committee on Oil and
Gas meeting back to order at 10:40 a.m. Representatives Ogan,
Dyson, Fate, Guess, and Joule were present at the call back to
order. Representatives Chenault and Kohring arrived as the
meeting was in progress. [For minutes on the overview by Andex
Resources, see the 10:13 a.m. minutes for this date.]
HB 439-COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMNT PROGRAMS&PETITIONS
Number 0047
CHAIR OGAN announced that the committee would hear HOUSE BILL
NO. 439, "An Act removing provisions providing an opportunity to
petition for review of proposed consistency determinations under
the Alaska coastal zone management program." He opened public
testimony. [Testimony at the previous hearing had been by
invitation only.]
Number 0118
TADD OWENS, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
(RDC), testified via teleconference, noting that RDC is a
private, nonprofit trade association representing individuals
and companies from Alaska's mining, timber, tourism, fisheries,
and oil and gas industries. He told members that RDC's mission
is to "grow" Alaska's economy through responsible development of
the state's natural resources.
MR. OWENS said RDC strongly supports HB 439, which eliminates a
redundant petition process from the Alaska Coastal Management
Program (ACMP) without compromising the ability of Alaska's
citizens or communities to provide meaningful input regarding
development projects within the coastal zone. He asserted that
the petition process targeted by HB 439 has been used as a means
to delay projects, which adds uncertainty and costs to doing
business in Alaska but provides no measurable benefit to the
environment. He assured members that if HB 439 passes, Alaskans
will retain "a multitude of opportunities" to participate in the
evaluation of projects in the coastal zone, including
opportunities to participate in and comment on ACMP consistency
determinations as well as the individual state and federal
permits associated with any given project. He remarked, "In
other words, HB 439 provides the kind of permit streamlining
that makes sense."
Number 0263
CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Owens whether he agrees with the fairly
broad-based support with regard to the need for this legislation
and to fix the process.
MR. OWENS answered yes. Reiterating that RDC is made up of
businesses from all of Alaska's resource sectors, he said the
ACMP touches on all those businesses, in all areas of the state;
furthermore, there has been concern for a long time among RDC's
members about making the ACMP more user-friendly.
Characterizing this bill as an incremental step in the right
direction, he emphasized that there is support for HB 439 from
all sectors of RDC's membership.
CHAIR OGAN asked whether it is unanimous support.
MR. OWENS replied, "We certainly have unanimous support from our
board of directors, yes, Mr. Chairman."
Number 0390
CHAIR OGAN asked whether there is anything else the RDC's board
believes should be "fixed" in coastal zone management at this
time.
MR. OWENS answered that the board is continuing to evaluate the
program. He reiterated the belief that HB 439 is the
appropriate first step.
Number 0470
LARRY HOULE, General Manager, Alaska Support Industry Alliance
("Alliance"), came forward to testify, noting that the Alliance
is a statewide nonprofit trade association with a membership of
419 businesses, contractors, suppliers, and individuals that
provide products and services in support of Alaska's oil and gas
industry, and that collectively represent more than 35,000
Alaskan residents who derive their livelihood in the oil and gas
industry in the state. He told the committee:
The purpose of my testimony today is to voice our
strong support for House Bill 439, an Act that removes
an unnecessary and duplicative administrative petition
process from the consistency determination procedure
under the Alaska coastal zone management program.
Contrary to recent articles in the Anchorage Daily
News, this bill does not eliminate ... a citizen
appeal process. What the bill does do is eliminate an
additional administrative layer in the petition
process that, in our opinion, could be used by
individuals as an avenue for the delay of permits.
The Alaska coastal zone management program is an
extremely open and public process for both local
governments and individuals. HB 439 in its current
form will amend the Coastal Zone Management Act in a
manner that is consistent with the original intent of
the law, without taking away the rights of the
individual for public comment and input.
At minimum, three specific avenues for individual
comment remain untouched in the Act. The first is
that the individual citizen ... always has an
opportunity for public comments in very early stages,
when the districts are first developing their overall
plans. Individual citizens also have petition and
comment opportunities when the districts and the
[Division] of Governmental Coordination [DGC] public
comment periods are opened and public-noticed. ... An
individual citizen can also comment during each
individual agency's public comment period, which is
unique to ... a specific project. In other words, the
greater the number of agencies involved in a project,
the greater number of opportunities the general public
has to comment.
Number 0637
MR. HOULE continued:
Most people understand that delays of 35 to 55 days in
a 120-day construction window can be devastating to a
project. I'd like to point out that the construction
window in the Arctic North Slope is oftentimes between
January 1 and about April 15th, approximately a 110-
to 120-day process. Speaking for the contracting
community, this lack of timeline certainty and risk of
what we call the mischievous petitioner injects an
uncertainty into a process that may mean the
difference between bidding on the job and not bidding
on the job.
The Alaska Support Industry Alliance supports
responsible oil and gas development in Alaska. Mr.
Chairman, we understand and believe that there are
three main components necessary for oil and gas
development in our state. First [is] ... that fiscal
certainty remain in place and ... stable. We've had a
predictable tax regime for the last decade, and it's
been good ... for the industry. Second, we need
access to the land, and Alaska has enjoyed a
predictable lease program over the many years.
Thirdly, a regulatory environment [is needed] that
provides a fair and consistent and predictable permit
process.
Unfortunately, the weakest link in our Alaska
exploration and development program happens to be the
regulatory uncertainty that exists. Essentially, the
permit process, we believe, is broken. The long-term
ramifications are only starting to surface as some of
the producing oil companies reduce their exploration
budgets and potentially new entrants for our "oil
patch" hold back and watch from the sidelines.
We see House Bill 439 as a significant step in the
right direction. It's a positive direction toward
regulatory reform, and we encourage this committee to
pass the bill out....
Number 0767
CHAIR OGAN offered his understanding, from the testimony of
Phillips Alaska, Inc. [at the previous hearing], that the
petition process has been used for delaying purposes. He asked
whether any Alliance members had articulated similar concerns.
MR. HOULE answered, "Our concern is ... essentially that delay.
I believe there were five petitions filed, and there was a delay
of anywhere from 30 to 60 days. And that certainly impacts the
bidding process ... and the work that is to be done on the North
Slope."
Number 0920
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association,
came forward to testify in support of HB 439, characterizing the
existing petition process under the statute as redundant and
unnecessary. He said he wasn't aware of any mining projects
affected by this petition process, but also wasn't aware of any
recent controversial projects that would have raised this issue.
Mr. Borell told the committee he is often asked by legislators
what they can do to improve and streamline the permitting
process, and to improve the investment climate in Alaska. He
offered his belief that removing this petition process would
answer those questions.
Number 1130
MR. BORELL, in response to Representative Dyson, indicated there
will likely be more gold production if the price rises. With
regard to whether any gold prospects are affected by this bill,
he said possibly Donlin Creek would be. He pointed out that
Donlin Creek is more than 150 miles from the coastal zone, but
said the way that the coastal zone map has been defined in
Alaska, to his understanding, is significantly different from
those in the rest of the country.
Number 1164
REPRESENTATIVE FATE mentioned testimony that anadromous streams
fall under coastal zone management, which he said would clearly
affect some mining areas. He asked Mr. Borell whether he knows
of any [projects] that may be affected in the future.
MR. BORELL replied, "In the Nome area, definitely." Almost the
entire Seward Peninsula would be considered "within the coastal
zone," as defined in the coastal zone management plan right now,
he said. As to how adverse the effect would be, he added, "It's
just one more roadblock that could be put in front of them."
Number 1244
NANCY WAINWRIGHT, Attorney, testified via teleconference in
support of HB 439. She began as follows:
I have enjoyed working with some members of this
committee on oil and gas issues in the past, as part
of [former] Senator Drue Pearce's Senate-sponsored
working group that included oil interests, AOGA
[Alaska Oil and Gas Association], and coastal
districts, that resulted in the legislature's
amendment of Title 38 and Title 46 in 1994, and
resulted in the petition process that is being
discussed here today.
I can say, unequivocally, we were wrong. The process
doesn't work for the public and needs to be fixed. I
am speaking in support of HB 439, and I hope ... to
provide this committee with a bit of a different
perspective and some facts that this committee can
consider in this and future actions concerning the
Division of Governmental Coordination. I will be
addressing two things: first, a bit of history of the
project that led to this, the discontent with the
petition process.
I am a little surprised to hear that Phillips was
delayed 30 to 60 days, because I can provide the
committee with a timeline of the process, and it
certainly was not due to the petition that this
project was delayed 30 to 60 days - and I will provide
that if the committee so desires.
Number 1347
MS. WAINWRIGHT addressed the way DGC administers projects. She
said DGC has "slick brochures, fancy conferences, and
bureaucratic jargon that is incomprehensible to all but a
handful of state employees." Furthermore, DGC took ten years to
develop petition regulations after the first petitions were
filed in the late 1980s, "and after being in use only a couple
of years, these regulations are an abysmal failure." She
suggested the problem is not the ACMP, which [former] Governor
Hammond and subsequent legislators have examined in detail, but
is DGC's inability to carry out its mission and develop
effective regulations that meet the intent of the law, as well
as the practice of allowing multiple extensions of review "that
exhaust both the applicant and the public."
Number 1402
MS. WAINWRIGHT spoke at length about a situation involving
Phillips [Alaska, Inc.] and her own clients:
I was contacted last year by some residents of the
North Slope who were concerned about their private
property to which they hold title and on which they
have hunted and fished for generations. This was an
unusual call because the property has the remarkable
feature [of having been] ... listed on the National
Register of Historic Places since 1970. It ... has a
unique place in our nation's and state's history. It
was a site of the gathering of people from Russian
Siberia to Eastern Canada in summer for thousands of
years to celebrate summer and exchange cultures [and]
foods, and have Eskimo games.
It was sort of a combination World's Fair and Olympics
for the northernmost peoples. Getting a designation
on the National Register of Historic Places ... is an
involved and well-documented process that does not
lightly bestow this designation. This is one, if not
the only, such aboriginal [place] so designated in
Alaska, and has been documented by archaeologists.
Number 1487
The owners of this property are not opposed to onshore
oil development, nor are they mischievous. To the
contrary, they were concerned because they had agreed
that Phillips could conduct "oil seismic" activity on
their property near the historic area, [but] wanted
two things: they wanted to be fairly compensated for
the right-of-way, just as any private property owner
is entitled, and, more importantly, they wanted to
ensure that there was no more damage to the historic
site, because a few years before, they had granted
access for seismic work, and one of the contracting
seismic companies had done extensive damage to the
site, including damage to the gravestones of the
family cemetery.
They also had concerns about the impact to
subsistence, because they had documented a decline in
certain fish and wildlife species since the nearby
Alpine development was operating. They were concerned
about potential water withdrawals from fish-bearing
lakes in the region and on their land.
Last week, Representative Green stated that when he
was working for ARCO, only sterile lakes were used for
water for ice roads. But I think Phillips has changed
that policy, because many of the DNR [Department of
Natural Resources] water permits issued to Phillips
identify lakes used in this region as fish bearing.
Number 1551
MS. WAINWRIGHT continued with her clients' situation:
So, in light of these concerns, these individuals
contacted me because they discovered that the project
was going forward, but Phillips had not paid them for
access, and not agreed to any measures to protect the
historic site and water in the region. DNR had
rejected their comments, and the legislature had
recently adopted a policy of "no public notice and
comment on water permits for ice roads" for these
types of projects, in House Bill 185. They were
alarmed that their voice was not being heard.
I was asked to seek protection for the site from the
federal historic preservation office, and to tell
these petitioners how to comment under the ACMP, which
specifically protects such historic resources and is
supposed to protect the rights of individuals to at
least comment.
DNR had a hearing on the issues and promised a quick
decision. DNR ... has not, after seven months, issued
any ruling on the issues raised. The seismic work and
exploration work and the appeal have long since
finished. I'm happy to say, however, that Phillips
did issue the checks two days after the DNR
administrative action was filed.
Number 1623
MS. WAINWRIGHT turned attention to DGC's role:
What is relevant to House Bill 439, before you today,
is the way DGC conducted its review. DGC had stated
that the project review was suspended and the comment
deadline was extended. Yet after these individuals'
comments were submitted, DGC informed them that it had
already, nonpublicly, restarted and closed the comment
period with no notice to the public.
Now, even with no public comments accepted and no
petition allowed, Phillips did not get its permit
until February. So Phillips' claim that the petition
process slows them up during the critical ice-road
period is not exactly accurate if it is intended to
reflect only the delays of the petition process. This
year, when Phillips' projects came forward and
applications were submitted in August -- now, even
with a petition process, that would give Phillips a
decision in time for ice-road construction. DGC is
supposed to take only 50 days to review the project;
yet DGC did not issue the decision until December.
Now, DGC and Phillips can best tell you why that four
months was necessary. The citizens, however, in
commenting are entirely controlled by DGC's decision.
Once the decision is issued, a petitioner has only 5
days to submit a notice of petition, and in no case
more than 20 days from the decision to file the
petition. So what took DGC 120 days to analyze and
come to a decision on, the citizens have 20 days.
Number 1720
Now, these projects are all in the Colville River
delta, and except for the development project that
Phillips had this year, which was not close to my
clients' actual property but was near their hunting
and fishing camps and near the gravesite of their
younger brother, they felt entitled to comment and
have their comments fairly considered.
There was one public comment per project. DGC
uniformly rejected these comments. DGC said that ...
their comments had been fairly considered. But ... my
clients felt that DGC's analysis - while indicating
that they had considered the comments, had read the
comments - did ... not meet what is required for fair
consideration.
When this legislature adopted that standard in 1994,
the ... former division director of DGC under Governor
Hickel, Dr. Rusanowski, stated that fair
[consideration] meant that the agency looked at
important factors, has taken a hard look at salient
problems, and has genuinely engaged in reasoned
decision making. Yet, in DGC's analysis, it expressed
a lack of familiarity with the area and the people's
concerns, revealing a basic misunderstanding of the
culture, terming the Inupiats who live there as
(indisc.), a term used in Canada, not Alaska. They
argued that the projects were far from my clients'
property and therefore subsistence should not be an
issue, failing to recognize that subsistence users,
and all hunters and fishermen, do not only hunt in
their own parcel and in their own backyard, but they
are entitled to [access] to state and federal lands.
Number 1813
MS. WAINWRIGHT continued:
Now, DGC claimed that it needed ... additional time,
and spent some - I believe Mr. Galvin testified last
week - 200 to 300 hours on one set of comments and one
petition, per project. That is 25 to 37 eight-hour
days. Now, these individuals were only given 5 days
to file their comments, another 15 days to analyze
what had already taken DGC four months to analyze.
MS. WAINWRIGHT offered clarification about testimony at the
previous hearing:
Now, I'd like to make one correction on the record:
Mr. Donajkowski, last week, claimed that ... one of
the petitions was only withdrawn minutes before the
hearing. That is simply untrue, and is another DGC
snafu. There's a section in DGC's regulations in
which a petitioner can authorize someone to represent
them. My clients had filed their own comments, but
asked me to represent them when they filed their
petition, and they wrote that down in their petition.
Phillips then contacted my clients, engaged in
negotiations over the petition, and after holding
extensive meetings, it resulted in my clients'
decision to withdraw the petition.
I telephoned DGC offices two hours before the hearing;
I told them the petition would be withdrawn. I faxed
a letter of withdrawal, with my signature, one hour
before the hearing, and confirmed that it was
received. Yet, for some reason, DGC insisted that my
clients sign the withdrawal. Now, finding a fax
machine in Nuiqsut and Atkasuk in a small amount of
time can be difficult. And they were only able to fax
it ... 15 minutes before the hearing; that is true.
But it was not ... withdrawn minutes before the
hearing.
Perhaps this committee should ask DGC why it would
expend the funds to call 15 Coastal Policy Council
members together when it had verbal notice for two
hours and written notice for one hour that ... such a
meeting was not necessary. The DGC staff person told
me that he was very angry and frustrated that he had
to work over the Christmas holidays over these issues,
and wanted to let the CPC know how much work had been
expended. Yet this Christmas schedule was DGC's
doing, not my clients'. The timeframes are very
strict for citizens.
Number 1944
MS. WAINWRIGHT continued:
There is more than enough frustration with this
process to go around. Phillips would like to point
the finger at a family that's trying to preserve its
gravesites, its property rights, its subsistence areas
and fishing, and a site on the National Register of
Historic Places - calling them "mischievous
petitioners." DGC would like to point the finger at
the burdensome public comments and petition process
that required DGC to take 25 to 37 days to analyze one
public comment. For their part, my clients feel they
have run into a juggernaut that leaves them no
options. This is a complete failure of the public
process, no matter who is to blame, since there is no
longer public comment on water permits [on] the North
Slope, and the petition process, as administered, is
unworkable.
Now, the applicant and the state and local governments
still have an appeal process. As Mr. Galvin said,
they can go through the elevation process. The
public, however, is out of luck and out of ...
options. The petition process, as Mr. Galvin said,
has never once resulted in a fair consideration
determination being overturned. Given the history of
this project and the project last year, some find it
difficult to believe that this agency, DGC, has a
perfect record of fair consideration.
Number 2027
There should be an examination of how DGC does ... its
work, how it [analyzes] comments it receives, how it
can possibly spend 200 to 300 hours on a petition when
it has allegedly already reviewed the project and
taken more than its 50 days to do so. This may be a
record for government inefficiency. There should be
an audit of DGC to find out how much time per project
is actually spent on analyzing the project, meeting
with the applicant, analyzing the public comments,
providing the public with information about the
comments.
In the past, my practice has focused on working to
achieve a balance between the need for planning, local
control, adequate public input, and sensible
development of the state's resources. I have had
clients as diverse as fuel suppliers, local
governments, coastal resource service areas, community
councils, fishing groups, tribal governments, and
public interest groups, and these individual citizens
of coastal districts. In my opinion, this process no
longer works for the public.
A solution to afford the public a real opportunity to
participate in the public ... process is essential.
Otherwise, ... the public's only option is litigation,
which satisfies no one. Thank you very much for your
time today.
Number 2093
CHAIR OGAN thanked Ms. Wainwright and pointed out that the bill
doesn't repeal DGC. He inquired about her affiliation.
MS. WAINWRIGHT specified that she is an attorney in private
practice in Anchorage; she has assisted the petitioners whose
petitions resulted in the introduction of this legislation. In
response to a further question, she said that as this petition
process is constructed in the regulations, she agrees that it
needs to be repealed.
CHAIR OGAN requested that testifiers submit any written
testimony.
[Patrick Galvin, Director, Division of Governmental
Coordination, informed members that he was available to answer
questions.]
Number 2198
CHAIR OGAN asked whether anyone else wished to testify; there
was no response. He closed public testimony.
Number 2226
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read
[original punctuation provided but formatting changed]:
Title Change
Line 1 - 3 Remove (An Act removing provisions
providing an opportunity to petition for review of
proposed consistency determinations under the Alaska
coastal zone management program")
Replace with "An Act relating to consistency
determinations under the Alaska coastal zone
management program"
Number 2223
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE objected for discussion purposes.
CHAIR OGAN noted that the title still would relate to
consistency determinations.
Number 2263
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING explained that he was offering Amendment
1 in order to open the possibility of additional modifications
as the bill goes through the process. He noted that there have
been concerns [expressed], and said he didn't know that the bill
is as comprehensive as it should be.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE maintained his objection. He explained
that this bill is trying to get a particular issue. If there
are other problems with coastal zone [management], those need to
be dealt with, but without broadening the possibilities too
much. He said he supports HB 439 and its current intent, and
that it is critical to get this particular piece through, as is,
to address existing problems, rather than use it as a way to
look at the whole [DGC] and perhaps lose support as the bill
moves forward. "You've got broad support for this," he told
members. "I think we ought to stick with it and move it. If
there's another bill regarding coastal zone issues, then let's
introduce a committee bill. But this is very narrow in scope,
for a very specific purpose. ... I haven't heard anybody oppose
this thing. And I think we ought to take advantage of that and
move it."
CHAIR OGAN noted that special committees don't have the ability
to introduce committee legislation this late in the session. He
agreed this opens it up, but only somewhat. He said he supports
the amendment because there is one more hearing in the House and
at least one or more in the Senate. He said he didn't want to
lose the legislation either, and that if it became too broad, he
might not support it.
Number 2442
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS strongly agreed with Representative Joule.
She said she believes it is a bit odd to replace a title without
having an amendment [in the body of the bill] so that people
know why the title is being changed. She expressed concern that
this amendment would let a committee-sponsored bill move out
with a broadened title, and yet committee members wouldn't have
any control over the content as it moved through the process.
She agreed that testimony had been heard [about other changes
that might need to be made]. She said it would be one thing for
someone to offer an amendment within the bill that also required
a title change, but again questioned opening up the title
[without such an amendment].
Number 2488
REPRESENTATIVE FATE noted that the amendment relates to the
consistency determination. He asked how much latitude the
description [in Amendment 1] provides, compared to the original
title.
Number 2514
PATRICK GALVIN, Director, Division of Governmental Coordination
(DGC), Office of the Governor, answered via teleconference that
as far as the statutory basis for the consistency review
process, there is only a single statute that directs the Coastal
Policy Council to develop the regulations associated with this
process; within that, the only limitations have to do with how
the public notice provisions are addressed, "the fact that there
needs to be some sort of ... elevation process, and then this
petition process." He added, "I think the only other area that
might be considered part of the consistency review, as a
statutory basis, would be with regard to phasing a project.
Other than that, ... most of the consistency review process is
done in regulation."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE mentioned public notice under the
consistency review. He asked, "If there was an expansion, are
there other protections for public notice and public review in
other pieces of legislation that are applicable to this piece?"
MR. GALVIN answered:
What is included in the statute right now is
requirements for what would be considered the minimum
public notice required in order to satisfy the
statutory requirements. And ... that is found in a
separate section of the statute from the petition
language. I guess my understanding of the question
was: what would be the nature of any amendment that
may be submitted under this revised title? As so, I
was just trying to give an overview of what other
areas, with regard to the consistency review process,
are statutory in nature, and [that] this bill may be
amended ... to affect.
I don't ... see where there are other areas that
provide a safeguard. Once you open it up, you're
saying you might want to go in these other areas. So,
I'm not sure what the question was trying to get to.
Number 2639
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he was trying to determine whether "any
tinkering with this under the new amendment, the amended title,
would take away any of those safeguards for public notice or
public input, at all."
MR. GALVIN replied that without seeing what the amendments to
the actual statutes would be, there is no way to tell. However,
amending the title to talk about consistency [determinations] in
general would allow amendments that could affect "these other
safeguards with regard to public notice and such" that aren't
possible under the current title.
Number 2862
CHAIR OGAN announced that he would support Amendment 1. He said
Ms. Wainwright had made a compelling case [for other changes]
and that there are some frustrations out there and perceptions
that additional work needs to be done.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE told fellow members:
Every year we go through this exercise of missions and
measures. And we go through this process to find out,
"Here [are] the things we expect, as a legislature, of
your division. And here's your mission, and here
[are] the measures. And how are you doing?" We get
that report back every year. And we've got a problem
with them? Let's use the process that we've set up.
If we've got suggestions, let's create new measures.
And that's what that system is for.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE concluded by saying he has a real concern
about changing the title, knowing that the anticipated effect is
to change "the language of this body" to include something else.
He added, "I can't support this ... because I feel that there
are other avenues that address that."
CHAIR OGAN called an at-ease at 11:24 a.m. He called the
meeting back to order at 11:26 a.m.
Number 2760
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING withdrew Amendment 1. He explained that
he was doing so in light of the concerns expressed by
Representatives Joule and Guess, the work on the current
legislation, and the support for it.
Number 2778
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report HB 439 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 439 was moved out of the
House Special Committee on Oil and Gas.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Oil and Gas meeting was adjourned at 11:28
a.m. [For minutes on the overview by Andex Resources, see the
10:13 a.m. minutes for this date.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|