SENATE BILL NO. 101 "An Act amending the definition of 'disaster.'" This was the first hearing for this bill. Senator Randy Phillips explained that his office went through the statutes dealing with disasters and came up with a proposed amendment to include economic disasters. He said he questioned what constituted a disaster and noted the inclusion of typhoons, tornadoes and hurricanes and wondered why they were listed in the bill. He suggested deletion of those terms and inserting "severe storm". Co-Chair John Torgerson pointed out that Alaska has had typhoons. One of which caused the last SouthCentral floods. He knew that the Aleutian Islands received a great deal of wind but didn't know if that qualified as hurricanes. BRUCE CAMPBELL, staff to Senator Randy Phillips explained the bill to the committee. SB 101 contained a couple adjustments in the definition of disaster. First was on line 5: shortage of food, water, fuel and clothing was added so that instead of being types of disaster as earlier listed on line 11, they could become caused by disasters. The second change involved the disasters as listed on line 6 in addition to a natural or manmade caused disaster. That seemed to be all-inclusive, but if there were any question that something was neither manmade nor natural, such as supernatural, the removal of the language would include those. There was no intent to require an event to be defined as either natural or manmade cause. Senator Al Adams referred to lines 8-12, the list of disasters and pointed out that some of the disasters would never happen in Alaska such as typhoon or a hurricane, and suggested focusing on more likely disasters like winter storms, ice storms, blizzards and droughts. Mr. Campbell didn't disagree. Senator Al Adams handed out list of disasters from other states that were qualified for receipt of federal funds and felt that Alaska should include some of these things. He specified some of the particular disasters noted in other states. He asked what would happen if statutes were adopted that were too restrictive, an event not covered on the list occurred, and the state wished to seek FEMA relief funds. He wanted the disaster list to allow the state to capture the maximum amount of needed federal funds. Senator Sean Parnell said he visited the same Internet site where Senator Al Adams's information was obtained and found the same information helpful. He felt that the state statute could be structured to fit FEMA guidelines. He thought the current statutes was not as restrictive as the FEMA guidelines and he wished to see a more narrow focus on the type of event allowed and also the immediacy of the impact. He noted that current law allowed for funding of capital projects a couple years after the event and did not address the immediate problems incurred during the disaster. He thought there was a difference between the immediate disaster relief funds focused on a catastrophic event with and immediate impact on the citizens and the funds for long term economic impact. He felt there could still be funding for the other projects but that they shouldn't be included in the provisions for emergencies. Senator Gary Wilken asked what were the seven allowable disasters. Senator Sean Parnell answered, earthquakes tsmaumis, landslides, winter storms, floods, severe storms and fires were included in a FEMA listing as disasters that occur in Alaska. Senator Dave Donley thought the language should be "severe winter storms." Co-Chair John Torgerson said many other states had adopted language similar to FEMA. He read some information from the Stanford Act into the record, "In the determination of the President, causes damage of the magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under the Disaster Relief Act of 1974.." That language would ensure that the federal funding could be collected. Also the determination of which event caused the trigger of the Stanford Act was incorporated by reference to the act. It might be broader than the seven events listed by Senator Sean Parnell. He agreed with Senator Al Adams that the statute shouldn't be tightened up too much but by referencing the federal disasters law it could prevent the omission of an event the federal government might fund. Senator Lyda Green commented on Senator Al Adams's point referring to Section 3 a totally separate section on farm disaster that the Governor could declare if a natural disaster caused a crop failure. Co-Chair John Torgerson spoke about a recent crop failure in the Big Delta area due to drought. JACK FARGNOLI, Y2K Coordinator for the State Of Alaska, spoke of concerns of his office about the uncertainty any enumeration scheme would put into place in general about disasters and in particularly with Y2K failures. He said that not to oppose the logic or wisdom of speaking to an enumeration scheme or any attempt to clarify what the state wished to do regarding disasters. Any clarity was always laudable. In general, he felt the comments of the committee so far reflected those of the Y2K office that other events may need to be considered. There were certain events unique to Alaska. In terms of a more narrow focus with the Y2K disasters, the department felt that Subsection C of the current bill was not changed and probably adequate. This was because most disasters that would emanate as a result of a Y2K event would probably be the result of an equipment failure. However, the language in Section C spoke to "avoidability" due to adequate maintenance. His office had concerns about that because that was a question at the forefront of Y2K liability discussions. There were strong arguments on both sides as to what was avoidable. Unfortunately, the courts had only just begun to speak to that issue and probably not make major determinations until after failures actually occurred. He summarized stressing that their biggest concern was the immeasurable gaps that the current enumeration scheme might leave. Senator Lyda Green asked if the removal of the comma in Section C caused that problem. She thought that what Jack Fargnoli referred to already was in statute. Jack Fargnoli said he was not asking for a change there. Co-Chair John Torgerson commented that this testimony made him want to tighten the language further with the threat of Y2K disaster funding expenditures. Senator Randy Phillips stressed that Section 2 (c) was currently in state statute and the Y2K office should have brought the concerns up several years ago. Jack Fargnoli agreed that it was in the law and that his office had not made an issue of it because Y2K had not been a legal consideration for longer than the past year. They had non- urgent legal concerns about the language in subsection C. However, there was ambiguity to the issue. Senator Randy Phillips said the reason we were here was because of numerous audits regarding misappropriation of dollars for disaster relief. He said the process was not perfect but that was the reason for this bill. He reprimanded Mr. Fargnoli and the Administration for not offering a solution to the problems. Jack Fargnoli repeated that he was not here to testify against the intent of the bill, but it would cause uncertainty in the Y2K areas and he had broader concerns about things that might fall between the cracks. He listed attributes he felt the bill offered. Senator Al Adams referred to lines 6 and 7 that would delete "a natural or manmade cause." He wanted to know what would happen in cases such as the Miller's Reach Fire where it was determined that the fire was caused by firecrackers. Would there be debate about the merits of the manmade cause of the fire while the fire was left to burn property and houses. Or would the definition of "fire" be sufficient? Jack Fargnoli deferred to others who were waiting to testify. DAVID LIEBERSBACK, Director of Emergency Services, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He began by stating that the division welcomed any opportunity to discuss process under which communities could seek help from state and federal government in times of disasters. In accordance with AK 26.23.050, it had always been the policy of the state that funds to meet disaster emergencies would be available. This policy served the citizens of the state quite well, according to David Liebersback. Under the new definition in SB 101, which would narrow the event under which the Governor could declare a disaster, the state would be constrained to assist Alaskans when an unusual natural event occurred. In addition, the division would be unable to respond to manmade events unless they were the release of oil or hazardous substance or an equipment failure, but only if that failure was predictably frequent, or a reoccurring event, or was not preventable by adequate equipment maintenance or operation. He listed past events from the last twenty years that would not be declarable under the new definition, including the 1979 Mat-Su Borough severe storm and high winds that closed roads and stranded residents. Rescue vehicles were unable to reach those in danger and the state declared a disaster to enable the Department of Transportation and Public Utilities and the National Guard to clear the road. Other events were the 1980 Anchorage windstorm that damaged over 5000 homes and businesses. In 1983 Ketchikan, a ship mishap damaged a dock on Gravina Island that was needed for fuel transport between the city and the airport. The state provided temporary alternate transportation until the dock was repaired. In 1985 the Metlakatla severe drought reduced water levels so the hydroelectric system could not generate sufficient power. In 1989 statewide record-breaking cold saw temperatures down to -85 degrees. The state and the federal government declared a disaster in order to provide for repairs to maintain and prevent damage to water, sewer, electrical systems and emergency re-supply of essential fuels and food. In 1991 severe erosion of the banks of the Mat-Su River destroyed or threatened homes along the bank. In 1991 the Seward sewage treatment lagoon suffered a catastrophic failure from undetermined causes. Finally, in 1998 Western Alaska Fisheries Disaster saw record high water temperatures in the Bering Sea and poor survival of all salmon and changes in migratory pathways, which lead to a collapse of the salmon run. The state requested federal disaster aid and the federal government responded as they did with the Texas drought crop failures due to extreme and unusual weather patterns. He added other events that would not be covered. Any act as the result of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, train or shipwrecks caused by human error and Y2K failures would also be disasters that the division would be unable to respond to under the new requirements of the bill. Department of Environmental Conservation respectfully cautioned the committee to carefully consider this new definition because it would be extremely difficult to define and list each possible event that may harm the people or property of the state. He added a recent meteor hit in the Mat-Su Valley. Had it been larger or in a populated area, the state would be unable to declare a disaster under the new definition. He summarized the list of events not allowed under the new provisions. Senator Lyda Green requested a written copy of the testimony given by David Liebersback. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if any of the aforementioned disasters were federally declared. David Liebersback replied that the 1989 cold spell was federally declared. He explained that in order to become a federal disaster, an event first had to be declared a state disaster. Co-Chair John Torgerson clarified that the high winds experienced in Anchorage was not declared. David Liebersback said it was a state declared disaster but it did receive federal Small Business Administration assistance due to the state declaration. The Small Business Administration was able to declare an agency disaster, which was different than a full presidential declared disaster. Co-Chair John Torgerson stated his desire to tighten the language and requested David Liebersback submit suggestions. Senator Loren Leman referred to the current language relating to oil or hazardous substance as, ".if the release required prompt action to avert environmental danger or damage.." He wondered if that was the same definition that was used under federal law or was it a broad definition of Title 26. David Liebersback answered that the definition of hazardous substance referred to AK 46.03.826, which governed the Department of Environmental Conservation and was a fairly broad definition. Senator Loren Leman was trying to determine if that statute would help the division with potential major sewer treatment failures. He said he would research the matter. Senator Lyda Green spoke to her concerns with the immediacy of response. She wanted clarification of that language stipulating the difference between an emergency and an emergency disaster and to make it the focus. That was the area where a tremendous amount of funds were expended. David Liebersback responded that there were some options. He spoke about the recovery stage after an event saying it was a long-term process. The division relied on FEMA for funding of recovery. FEMA was not equipped to assist in the immediate response needed for some of the disasters in Alaska. Senator Lyda Green referred to language in Section 26 saying that emergency had a meaning given in US code. She suggested the committee could research that area. Senator Loren Leman pointed out that the definition in Title 46 for hazardous substance was broader than he expected and read the language into the record. "An element or compound, which when it enters in the atmosphere or in or upon the water or surface or subsurface land or the sea, presents an eminent and substantial danger to public health or welfare including but not limited to fish, animal or vegetation or any part of the natural habitat in which they are found." He believed that would cover the failure of a sewage treatment plant as well as a chlorine leak or similar event. MARY GILSON, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs Section, Civil Division, Department of Law testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She gave a historical perspective on the definition of disasters. The current definition of disaster was modeled after the Model State Disaster Act, written in 1972. Many states had similar definitions. She had done research of other states and their definitions and found none with a finite list of disasters, and they were much broader. Co-Chair John Torgerson countered that his research found several states with tighter definitions. Mary Gilson pointed out that Idaho used language, "included but not limited to." There was further debate between Co-Chair John Torgerson and Mary Gilson on this point. Senator Randy Phillips had a proposed Amendment #1 that he chose to not offer at the time. Senator Al Adams wanted to see a list of federal programs and funding available and what would happen if the statute were tightened. He wanted to know what federal funding would be lost. Co-Chair John Torgerson said his intent was to incorporate language that would allow for all available federal funding. Senator Dave Donley wanted to consider modifications to AS 26.23.025, specifically subsection C (1) where the language discussed the requirement of a special session or authorization of the presiding officers to spend more than $1 million. He wanted to add a $5 million cap on that figure. Secondly, for expenditures over $5 million, he felt the presiding officers should poll the members of the Legislature to obtain written approval by the majority of the Legislature for additional expenditures. He felt the original language was adopted before the advent of fax machines, e-mail and cellular phones, when it was more difficult for people to reach one another. Now technology provided plenty of opportunity to consult the members of the Legislature. He felt a $5 million cap was reasonable. Co-Chair John Torgerson did not approve of the idea of polling members of the Legislature on substantial binding issues, suggesting this would open up another issue involving open meeting violations and other problems. Senator Dave Donley said he would rather there was more than the two presiding officers involved in the expenditure decision making. His proposal would not be in conflict of the Open Meetings Act if the current practice of obtaining approval from the presiding officers was not in conflict. This method would allow a majority to make the decision to authorize funds for disasters. Co-Chair John Torgerson countered that he didn't believe the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate were currently approving any expenditure of funds. They were just deciding whether or not to call the Legislature into a special session. He admitted that this decision would in fact affect whether or not funds would be expended, but they still would not be approved without the approval of the body of the Legislature. Senator Dave Donley said the poll could therefore be held to determine whether or not there would be a special session. Co-Chair John Torgerson conceded. Co-Chair John Torgerson ordered the bill held in committee. The committee took a short recess.