HOUSE BILL NO. 51 "An Act relating to the Department of Environmental 1 Conservation." REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG noted that the Resource Development Council supported HB 342 and HB 51. He observed that HB 51 is similar to HB 342 which was passed by the Nineteenth Alaska State Legislature and vetoed by the Governor. He noted that provisions relating to Arsenic, mixing zones, and statutory authority for state administration of the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program differ in the two bills. He stated that HB 51 is a regulatory reform bill. He maintained that a number of companies and industries in the State have experienced substantial problems under the current permit process. He observed that private business is willing to contribute to the cost associated with the issuance of permits by providing outside expertise and data. Representative Rokeberg referred to the findings and intent section. He quoted section 1: "The people of Alaska express their will through the legislature and regulations implement legislative action." He alleged that "many of the people that come out for public hearings are "professional nea-sayers", that have nothing else to do, and by and large don't truly represent the will of the people of the State of Alaska and that is why we have a legislature." He maintained that it is the legislature that determines the policy of state government, not the administrative bureaucracy that implements the laws. Representative Rokeberg reviewed HB 51. He noted that the legislation defines water discharge and background conditions; requires the State to speak to mixing zones in regulation; and clarifies that new state regulations cannot be more restrictive than federal EPA water quality standards. New regulations must conform to EPA standards when those standards are made less restrictive and/or are eliminated. He observed that if federal EPA standards are modified there is no mechanism to modify corresponding state regulations. The legislation would require the Department of Environmental Conservation to go through the entire Administrative Procedures Act to lower or eliminate Alaska water quality standards if federal standards are eliminated or reduced. The legislation requires the Department of Environmental Conservation to comply with this provision during their federally mandated triennial review period. If a state standard does not conform to its federal counterpart the Department would implement the process contained in AS 46.03.087. He maintained that the intent is not to create a burden on the Department. The Department is required to take action on eliminated or reduced federal regulations within 90 days. The state regulation must conform to 2 federal regulation or go through the process in AS 46.03.087. He observed that the Department will be exempt from the petitioning provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act. He added that anyone can request a review of a regulation. Review must take place within 30 days. Representative Rokeberg maintained that section AS 446.03.087 allows state regulations to be more stringent than federal regulations. He stressed that stable water quality standards are important to investment in interstate commerce, particularly in the minerals industry. He maintained that this reflects the will of the House in regards to state policy. He discussed the hearing process. He demonstrated that HB 342 received extensive hearings during the Nineteenth Alaska State Legislature. He pointed out that the legislation will adopt the volumetric Imhoff cone method for measurement of settleable solids as recommended by the Department of Environmental Conservation. Representative Davies questioned what the bill is trying to fix or address. Representative Rokeberg replied that the legislation is an important symbol, that the State is open for business. It also shows who is going to set state policy. He emphasized that industry has expressed interest and support for this type of legislation. Representative Grussendorf referred to page 4, line 12. He asked what is expected of the Department of Environmental Conservation in regards to the requirement for a written finding to assess the economic and technological feasibility of a proposal. Representative Rokeberg asserted that the Department of Environmental Conservation has adequate personnel to comply with the provision. The intent is that the Department take on these elements when drafting regulations. He stated that many of the requirements of the EPA do not have a technical method of measurement to meet the published quantitative number required. He emphasized that "consider" was added at the request of the Department. Representative Grussendorf pointed out that the legislation requires the Department of Environmental Conservation to "consider and prepare" a written finding. He questioned if there will be a budgetary commitment to assure that the agency possess the necessary expertise to implement the provisions of HB 51. Representative Rokeberg stated that the Department of Environmental Conservation already has the technical ability to implement the provisions. Representative Grussendorf stressed that the written findings that the Department of Environmental Conservation is required to prepare must consider the economic and 3 technological feasibility. He observed that they are expected to accomplish this in 90 days or a mutually agreeable time. Representative Rokeberg clarified that the Department only has to enter into the process within 90 days. He agreed that the Department should not be asked to do something that they do not have the capability of accomplishing. He added that the scope of the required work does not demand full economic analysis from fully qualified Ph. D.'s. He stated that the Department should have the ability to make technological assessments. He acknowledged that a consultant should be retained for discreet information or areas the Department is lacking in expertise. He stated that there would be value for a modest fiscal note. He observed that there will be some additional burdens and regulatory undertakings. Representative Grussendorf summarized that staff do not have to be experts or Ph. D.'s, but if an applicant is turned down and challenges the feasibility or economic study by the Department, then nothing is accomplished. Representative Rokeberg replied, "not if the applicant's right." SCOTT THORSON, PRESIDENT, RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL testified in support of HB 51. He asserted that the legislation solves a number of problems that have gone unaddressed for a number of years. He stressed that water quality issues are key to promoting different types of resource development in the State. He maintained that the Department of Environmental Conservation has been unwilling or unable to address a lot of the concerns. He observed that, under current law, a mining operation would have to replace turbid, glacier type water with drinking quality water. He noted that the legislation addresses this concern. He stressed that the Resource Development Council is in strong support of the legislation. BECKY GAYE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL spoke in support of HB 51. She stated that HB 342 was a good bill. She added that HB 51 is a better bill. She stressed that congruence between the executive and administrative branches is important on critical choices facing the State. She maintained that the focus needs to be on permits and the ability to do business while protecting state waters for all users. She stressed that congruence will reduce frivolous lawsuits. She asserted that the legislation will minimize wasted efforts. Ms. Gaye noted that there is no state adjustment policy in regards to the lowering or removal of a federal standard. There is a federal law that addresses compliance with stricter federal standards. She spoke in support of an automatic requirement to adjust state standards when federal 4 changes result in less strict standards or the deletion of federal mandates. She maintained that HB 51 requires the Department of Environmental Conservation to set scientifically supportable, detectable standards that are consistent with existing federal standards and realistic for Alaska. She stressed that where possible HB 51 gives the Department of Environmental Conservation statutory authority and backing for efforts already underway, using background conditions and mixing zones. It specifically allows for the State to have stricter standards than federally required. She maintained that HB 51: * Provides an efficient change mechanism for the Department to respond to changes in federal regulations; * Allows a definitive process (similar to, but not as rigorous as the air program) for evaluating agency conclusions which result in state standards being set stricter than federal requirements; * Provides an allowance for discharge waters to match the quality of the receiving waters; and * Provides a statutory mandate that mixing zones will be provided for by regulation. Ms. Gaye referred to page 2, line 1. She observed that the Department of Environmental Conservation is given statutory guidance to continue their investigation of NPDES. She expressed concern with state implementation of this program. Ms. Gaye observed that reference to the Clean Water Act was added on page 2, line 10. She acknowledged that the Clean Water Act protects more than the requirements contained in section 3(1). Ms. Gaye spoke in support of the use of "background conditions" as contained in the bill. Ms. Gaye referred to page 1, line 29. She maintained that subsection (b) assures that federal standards will be exceeded for shellfish growing areas. She agreed that shellfish beds should have a higher standard for human fecal coliform. She noted that the Department "may adopt a water quality standard or other regulation related to water quality that is more restrictive then applicable federal water quality criteria or regulations only after following the procedures in AS 46.03.087(b). Ms. Gaye stressed that if they are not in agreement with 5 what the Department of Environmental Conservation is doing then the Resource Development Council will fight in the public process and court. The written request is only in response to incorporation of a future reduction or elimination in water quality. She acknowledged that it would be a lot of work for the Department to compare existing state standards to federal standards. She maintained that there should not be an additional cost for review of the standards during the triennial review process. She emphasized that they want to have a scientific explanation for stricter standards. Ms. Gaye referred to page 4, lines 10 - 13. She observed that the Department of Environmental Conservation has included economic considerations in the regulatory arena. She emphasized that they want the Department to make a case for stricter regulations based on scientific methodology. Co-Chair Therriault discussed the use of "may" on page 2, line 31. He maintained that the power of the commissioner to have a higher standard, without going through the process, is retained. Representative Davies questioned the status of mixing zones in regulations. Ms. Gaye stated that there are regulations regarding mixing zones. She observed that the Department of Environmental Conservation is working to change mixing zone regulations. She maintained that there is no statutory authority in state law. She asserted that the Legislature should give the Department of Environmental Conservation statutory authority for mixing zones. In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf, Ms. Gaye noted that NPDES is a federal program that can be assumed at the state primacy level. (Tape Change, HFC 97-34, Side 2) Ms. Gaye stated that they would "much rather have everything here than in region ten." Representative Grussendorf pointed out that state administration of the NPDES program would result in a large fiscal note. Ms. Gaye emphasized the need for debate. Representative Davies referred to a letter from the EPA to Michele Brown, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation, dated 2/14/97 (copy on file). Ms. Gaye stated that she discussed the issue with someone in the Division of Air and Water. She stated that she would be willing to adjust the legislation based on issues raised in the EPA's letter, "to the extent that we agreed with them." 6 Representative Davis noted that there is a large fee to applicants of NPDES permits. He asked to what degree they cover the cost. Ms. Gaye discussed a letter from the Department of Environmental Conservation, to the House Finance Committee Co-Chairs, dated 2/20/97 (copy on file). She quoted the Department of Environmental Conservation as saying on page 3 that: "As a result, this 'special' procedure would come into play nearly every time the state proposed any water quality standard or discharge limit, including mixing zones." She asserted that the Department of Environmental Conservation is wrong in their assessment. She maintained that the procedure would only come into play if state regulation is stricter than federal regulations, if there is a law that doesn't exist, or if federal regulations change. She referred to a "closed door" meeting with Governor Knowles that occurred two and a half years ago regarding the State's EPA petition on mixing zones. She noted that mixing zone regulations have not been completed. NEIL PLESTED, NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference network in opposition to HB 51. He maintained that the legislation is "blatantly destructive to the health and welfare concerns of Alaskans." He asserted that the legislation will lower water quality in Alaska to the lowest standards nationwide. He alleged that the bill will cripple the Department of Environmental Conservation's review process. He maintained that water quality should not be equated to economic feasibility of any entity. He stressed that water quality standards should not be sacrificed at any price. DAN WINN, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN, HOMER testified via the teleconference network in opposition to HB 51. He stressed the importance of clean water to the fishing industry. He observed that the Washington salmon industry has been adversely affected by water quality. He commented on remarks by Representative Rokeberg concerning the public process. DENNIS RANDA, ALASKA CHAIRMAN, TROUT UNLIMITED testified via the teleconference network in opposition to HB 51. He provided members with written testimony (copy on file). He emphasized the importance of clean water. He maintained that drinking water and fish habitat standards do not equate. He expressed concern with the impact of the legislation on the Department of Environmental Conservation. He maintained that mixing zones establish an exclusive use of the water by a single user. He expressed concern that a single user group has spoken directly to the Legislature without input from the other side. He maintained that 7 "there has not been a salmon stream anywhere in the world that has withstood the urbanization of man, along its banks." He maintained that turbidity standards should be addressed with a variance. He observed that constituents trust their representatives to take care of their resources. He suggested that changes occurring in the Department of Environmental Conservation address some of the concerns incorporated in the legislation. JEFF PARKER, ALASKA SPORT FISHING ASSOCIATION testified via the teleconference network. He noted that the Association passed a resolution in opposition to HB 51. He disagreed with Ms. Gaye's comments regarding application of the special procedures provisions. He referred to subsection (c), page 3. He stressed that AS 46.03.085 utilizes the special procedures contained in AS 46.03.087. He maintained that a proposal to reduce state regulations below federal water quality standards would activate the special procedures. He asserted that the legislation will not achieve its goal. He maintained that the legislation will add costs. He asserted that the legislation will not result in stable state regulations. He stressed that the legislation will result in frequent, repetitive, multiple, and over lapping efforts by industry to petition for regulatory changes that will have to be adopted. He acknowledged that the legislation is symbolic, but emphasized that "symbols do not create good law." PATTY GINGSBURG, REGIONAL CITIZENS' ADVISORY COUNCIL OF PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND (RCAC) testified via the teleconference network in opposition to HB 51. She maintained that HB 51 moves the emphasis away from prevention, to a wait and see approach. She asserted that the legislation puts a much higher priority on some types of jobs. She maintained that it relegates the fishing and tourism industries to a distant second. "Under this bill, state regulators would have to prove fish are dying in order to set standards higher than the federal minimum." She asserted that the legislation takes away the Department's flexibility to address site- specific needs and issues. Representative Kelly maintained that Ms. Ginsburg's comments were exaggerated. Ms. Ginsburg expressed concern regarding aqueous hydrocarbons. She noted that there is no federal limit on total aqueous hydrocarbons. She added that it is imperative that the Department of Environmental Conservation have adequate funding for administration of the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, if the State takes over the program. She urged the Committee to reject HB 51. In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Ms. 8 Ginsburg observed that current statutes allow the Department of Environmental Conservation to regulate pollutants if they could have a detrimental impact. She understood that the legislation would require that the Department prove a deleterious effect is actually occurring before a standard could be changed. STAN STEPHANS, VALDEZ testified via the teleconference network in opposition to HB 51. He stated that HB 51 brings confusion to the process of developing water quality standards. He maintained that the current process is effective in bringing agencies, industry, and citizens together to resolve issues. He asserted that no one business or combination of businesses have the right to destroy another for jobs or economic development. He alleged that the legislation could destroy fisheries and tourism. CRAIG MCCORMICK, HAINES CHAPTER, UNITED SOUTHEAST GILLNETTERS ASSOCIATION testified via the teleconference network in opposition to HB 51. He emphasized the importance of the fishing industry and clean water. MIKE VANNOTE, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN, HAINES testified via the teleconference network in opposition to HB 51. He observed that Chile claims that its salmon is from the "cleanest waters on earth." He asserted that the fishing industry employs more people than the oil, gas, timber and mining industries combined. He stated that a study is needed to assess the affect on the fishing industry. In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Mr. VanNote observed that fishing vessels are not allowed to leave any oil in the water. Human waste is retained and pumped out. He spoke against degradation from mixing zones. He observed that there they cannot process fish with waters outside of Sitka due to pollution from the mill. Representative Grussendorf pointed out that sport fisherman and commercial fisherman agree on the importance of habitat protection. Co-Chair Therriault stressed that a balance has to be found. GREG BISBY, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN, HAINES testified via the teleconference network in opposition to HB 51. He stated that pollutants in mixing zones can be taken into fish. MIKE SAUNDERS, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN, HAINES testified via the teleconference network in opposition to HB 51. (Tape Change, HFC 97-35, Side 1) 9 Mr. Saunders stressed that Alaskan fish are marketed with the claim that they are taken from pristine waters. He emphasized that the mining industry can operate without degradation to the fishing industry. NORMAN HUGHES, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN, HAINES testified via the teleconference network in opposition to HB 51. He emphasized the importance of clean water. He maintained that current water standards are working. ELDON DENNIS, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN, JUNEAU testified in opposition to HB 51. He stressed that he is not opposed to oil or timber development. He insisted that oil and timber industries not impact the fishing industry in a negative manner. He maintained that HB 51 will have a negative impact. He observed the importance of Alaska's marketing image. He referred to the Kensington project as an example of how current regulations have worked well. He spoke in support of site-specific exemptions. STEVE BEHNKE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA WILDERNESS RECREATION AND TOURISM ASSOCIATION testified in opposition to HB 51. He alleged that the legislation symbolizes that the State is open to certain business, that businesses that result in dirty water will be at the expense of businesses that require clean water. He stressed that Alaska's reputation as pristine and unspoiled attracts visitors. He asserted that the legislation "makes the dirtiest uses of water the dominate uses." He maintained that commercial fishing and tourism industries combined are the largest in the State. He emphasized that the tourism and commercial fishing industries spend huge sums to market Alaska as a place where clean water and a pristine environment mean the highest quality products and experiences. He stressed that the legislation sends the opposite message. Representative Kelly quoted from Governor Knowles' 2/11/97 press release: "Common sense tells you that current EPA standards are unreasonable. The EPA says that it is okay to drink a glass of water from an Alaskan stream, but if you pour that water back into the stream you are violating the law because the level of natural occurring Arsenic is too high for the federal government." He agreed with Governor Knowles' statement. He asserted that the legislation is trying to bring common sense to state regulations. Mr. Behnke stated that concerns should be addressed through the ongoing regulatory process. He acknowledged that standards in regards to Arsenic do not make sense. He observed that the legislation does more than correct this problem. 10 Representative Davies observed that the Arsenic issue is being fought on a federal level and state law will not affect the issue. Representatives Davies and Kelly debated the reasonableness of state regulations. KATY HANSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED SOUTHEAST ALASKA GILLNETTERS ASSOCIATION testified in opposition to HB 51. She observed that Alaska's image of pristine waters is important. She suggested that specific problems should be addressed through regulation. She noted that statutes do not allow the Department of Environmental Conservation flexibility to work with industry. She emphasized the economics of industries currently using the waters. She stressed that fishing is the number one private employer in the State. She maintained that fishing, timber and mining industries can work together as long as habitat is protected. DICK MYRON, SIERRA CLUB, JUNEAU testified in opposition to HB 51. He provided members with a declaration of his credentials (copy on file). He noted that he is a retired fishery research biologist. He discovered that flush rate calculations for the mixing zone in Lynn Canal was in error by a factor of 10. The flushing rate of Lynn Canal was incorrectly figured at 20 days. The correct rate is 200 days. He pointed out that agencies are under-funded. He maintained that the State does not have the staff to adequately analyze water quality. He asserted that there are serious impacts from logging occurring on salmon streams. He asserted that salmon stock will crash if degradation continues. SUSAN SCHRADER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY testified in opposition to HB 51. She observed that the sponsors of the legislation have stated that: It is the Legislature's intent that Alaska's water quality regulations be adopted and implemented in a credible manner; be based on scientifically measurable criteria; and be economically feasible to comply with. Ms. Schrader alleged that HB 51 will not achieve this goal. She observed that clean water is critical to the economic prosperity and health of Alaskans. Unlike a majority of states, Alaska enjoys a reputation of having pristine waters. She maintained that the resource extractive industries in Alaska should be willing to meet high water quality standards designed to protect Alaska's pristine waters. She observed that the Alaska Environmental Lobby opposes the bill because it would: 11 * Jeopardize the health and welfare of Alaskans and their ability to protect their water resources by lowering Alaska's water quality standards to the lowest standards nationwide; * The bill will lead to great confusion, delays and litigation in the permitting process; * It violates the basic principle of the clean water act by ignoring the concept of multiple users; * It introduces a definition of "background condition" that would make polluted water the standard for further discharges; and * The legislation requires the Department of Environmental Conservation to deal with new, time- intensive, confusing procedures for administering water quality standards. Ms. Schrader observed that the Department of Environmental Conservation has been subject to budget reductions in the past several years. She maintained that HB 51 will hand over the power to determine the quality of Alaska's water to the federal government. She stated that at a time when Alaska is attempting to convince the nation of our good stewardship in order to open up ANWR and NPR-A, HB 51 would show that the State is willing to compromise our water quality to placate industry. She asserted that the State's unique attributes must be protected by unique standards that can be in excess of federal criteria. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the State is adopting federal standards. He questioned Ms. Schrader's contention that the State would receive a "black eye" for adopting the standards that most of the states live by. If a lower standard is adopted scientific processes must be met. He observed that the State must define "pristine" waters. AL EWING, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION noted that the Department has strong concerns regarding HB 51. He provided members with a letter from Commissioner Brown and a letter from the Regional Administrator of Region 10 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) detailing their concerns (copies on file). Mr. Ewing maintained that the language of HB 51 seems to indicate confusion about some of the basics of the Clean Water Act (CWA). There are three major provisions of the CWA that are relevant to HB 51. The first has to do with technology-based standards, the second is focused on water 12 quality standards and the third concerns permitting of pollutant discharges. Mr. Ewing explained that development of technology-based standards is the domain of the EPA. The EPA, through exhaustive examination of available treatment technology on an industry by industry basis, determines what level of treatment is technologically and economically practicable. The EPA is also charged with identifying best available treatment technology. Out of this examination comes effluent limits or limits on the concentration of pollutants that an industry can discharge. The CWA objective is zero discharge of pollutants, and for a number of industries technology is available to achieve zero discharge of pollutants. Mr. Ewing clarified that technology standards are not based on the conditions of a particular water body. They are applicable in all states and territories of the United States, without regard to the water body to which the discharge goes. A technology based standard may require the discharge to be cleaner than the receiving water. Setting technology-based standards is the domain of the EPA. Mr. Ewing observed that the CWA gives states the responsibility for setting water quality standards. Alaska determines what uses are possible for state waters and sets standards to protect those uses. The EPA assists in this effort by providing both numerical and narrative criteria on which the states can base water quality standards. They also provide guidance on the process and procedures for establishing water quality standards. When states fail to carry out their responsibility for setting water quality standards, the EPA may prescribe federal standards in lieu of state standards. That is how Alaska came to be covered by the National Toxic Rule (NTR), which has created numerous problems for permitting. He noted that standards and criteria are two different things. Criteria are a subset of water quality standards. Mr. Ewing explained that both technology-based standards and water quality standards may come into play when permit limits are set for a particular discharger. If effluent limits, federally established technology-based limits, result in a discharge that is as clean or cleaner than the water quality standards for the water body receiving the discharge, then nothing more needs to be done. If the federally established technology-based limits are insufficient to meet water quality standards, then one of two things, or a combination of these two things needs to be considered - a mixing zone may be utilized, or additional treatment technology may be employed, or a combination of 13 the two. Mr. Ewing maintained that a very serious problem with HB 51, is that it confuses the concepts and the terminology associated with water quality criteria, water quality standards, technology based effluent limits, permitting, and compliance. He acknowledged that Alaska's water quality standards are not as good as they could be. He observed that the Department has a major effort underway to improve standards. Mr. Ewing asserted that Governor Knowles has given the Department of Environmental Conservation the charge to ensure that standards protect Alaskan waters for all users and to actively consult with Alaskans in setting those standards. He maintained that the Department is aggressively making changes where needed. Mr. Ewing stressed that after an evaluation of regulations regarding suspended sediments and petroleum hydrocarbon particulates, the Department concluded that no changes are appropriate. Mr. Ewing observed that the Department is rewriting their mixing zone regulations in an effort to make these regulations understandable, workable, and adequately protective of Alaskan resources. He noted that the regulations will have an additional period of public review. He stated that negotiations with EPA have resulted in an agreement by EPA to withdraw Alaska from coverage by 19 acute aquatic criteria. When withdrawal is completed, Alaska will be able to utilize site specific procedures. Mr. Ewing explained that Arsenic limits are also currently prescribed by the NTR. The Department has focused on freeing Alaska from "this overly restrictive" federal limit. He observed that Commissioner Brown has written letters and discussed this issue with regional and national EPA leaders. In addition, she has written in support of an Alaska Miners Association petition to have this limit removed. He observed that Governor Knowles signed a petition to the Administrator of EPA demanding that the NTR criteria, which is 277 times more restrictive than Alaska's drinking water standard, be lifted until research has been completed to determine an appropriate limit. The Department expects to see results from these efforts. Mr. Ewing observed that Governor Knowles sent a letter to 1200 Alaskans asking them to identify the most critical water quality standards issues having an impact on permitting, resource protection or compliance. That survey identified 12 issues including such things as petroleum 14 hydrocarbons, total dissolved solids, coliform bacteria, and procedures for setting site specific standards and reclassifying water bodies. Working in conjunction with a water quality advisory group, the Department of Environmental Conservation has teams of people working on each of these issues with the charge to develop scientifically sound solutions. The Department expects to bring all twelve of these issues to resolution over the next 10 months. He emphasized that the Department's goal is to carefully protect Alaska's water resources, but at the same time to remove unnecessary obstacles and expense for development. He asserted that the Department is committed to partnership with industry. He observed that resources available to the Department of Environmental Conservation to accomplish these goals are very limited. He maintained that the Department can achieve their goals if they do not have obstacles. He asserted that HB 51 is an obstacle. He alleged that HB 51 would not help the Department to remove Alaska from the NTR or to be released from coverage by the federal arsenic limit, which is 277 times more restrictive than Alaska's drinking water standard. He emphasized that HB 51 creates new and costly bureaucratic procedures which will divert scarce resources. In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Mr. Ewing observed that the Department of Environmental Conservation has approved dozens of mixing zones. Co-Chair Therriault asked if the Department is philosophically opposed to having the authority for mixing zones in statute. Mr. Ewing noted that states have been allowed to create mixing zones as a matter of discretion in federal law, based on site-specific additions and science. He cautioned that statutory authority may create problems. In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Mr. Ewing noted that the Department does not have state or federal authority to create mixing zones. He maintained that mixing zones are in the discretionary authority given to states, by interpretation, from the federal government. He did not think that the Department would have a chance of losing a situation due to the lack of authority. The State has not been challenged in regards to implementation of mixing zones. Co-Chair Hanley observed that regulations have to be supported by state or federal authority. Mr. Ewing clarified that there is no specific authority under state or 15 local law. He stated that the authority goes back to state and federal law under the broader state water laws. In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf, Mr. Ewing agreed that the legislation shifts the burden of proof. He stated that it is not clear if mixing zones are mandatory under HB 51. He expressed concern with the processes the Department would have to follow. He stressed that the processes will divert the Department's attention from other issues. (Tape Change, HFC 97-35, Side 2) Mr. Ewing stated that HB 51 would put an additional burden on the Department. Co-Chair Hanley summarized that the regulation process justifies the adoption of standards. Mr. Ewing explained that the Department uses federal criteria and guidance in setting state water quality standards. He reiterated that the State does not have the resources for economic analysis that the federal government does. He acknowledged that the Department looks at impacts and costs, but not to the extent that is contemplated by the legislation. Co-Chair Hanley summarized that if the State adopts stricter standards than there is some justification. There could be a biological or chemical problem, or a physical condition or characteristic of the area that requires stricter standards. Stricter standards can also be adopted to protect the human health, welfare or propagation of fish and wildlife. He asked what the Department of Environmental Conservation would be required to do that they are not currently doing. Mr. Ewing referred to the requirement that the Department review all state regulations in regards to federal standards. He asserted that this requirement would create an enormous additional workload. He stated that the Department would prefer to tackle problems on a priority basis as they are brought to the Department. Co-Chair Hanley noted that the Department has submitted a $273 thousand dollar fiscal note to perform the review. Mr. Ewing acknowledged that it is the policy call of the Legislature to determine if the review is worth the time. He stated that the Department does not think it is worth the time. He stressed that problems are resolved when they are brought forward. He maintained that looking for problems is a waste of time and resources. Co-Chair Hanley questioned what specific problems could be identified that the Department would not normally find. Mr. 16 Ewing responded that the provision does not improve the basic process, "it adds process and procedure to no particular end." HB 51 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.