{"id":58272,"date":"2020-02-09T20:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-02-10T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/news\/capitol-live-water-schools-and-vetoes\/"},"modified":"2020-02-10T15:16:24","modified_gmt":"2020-02-11T00:16:24","slug":"capitol-live-water-schools-and-vetoes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/news\/capitol-live-water-schools-and-vetoes\/","title":{"rendered":"Capitol Live: Water, schools and vetoes"},"content":{"rendered":"
Meeting summary: <\/strong>A bill that would lay out a new way for designating Alaskan waters for the highest level of protection under the federal Clean Water Act was not popular with the people in the room at the Capitol in Juneau.<\/p>\n 3:15 p.m.<\/strong><\/p>\n Emily Anderson, Alaska Program Director for Wild Salmon Center, is now giving testimony.<\/p>\n Anderson said she appreciates the Legislature’s desire to step in and introduce a process, but she questions whether the process outlined in the bill is the correct one.<\/p>\n Tarr said one of the significant challenges of the issue is whether DEC can make an ONRW designation.<\/p>\n “I’m struggling with how I’m going to move forward with this,” Tarr said.<\/p>\n A call from Haines may be the last testimony heard today.<\/p>\n Jessica Plachta, executive director for Lynn Canal Conservation<\/a>, is speaking in opposition to the bill and said LCC is concerned the bill would essentially allow the governor to veto ONRW designations.<\/p>\n 3:05 p.m.<\/strong><\/p>\n The meeting is scheduled to continue for another 10 minutes. The meeting will resume Friday, and that’s when the committee could vote to advance the bill out of committee.<\/p>\n Sarah Davidson is now giving testimony.<\/p>\n She said the bill “all but ensures there will never be a Tier 3” water designation in the state.<\/p>\n “The state is putting profit over public health and the safety of its own residents,” Davidson said.<\/p>\n 3 p.m.<\/strong><\/p>\n Doug Woodby of Juneau is now giving testimony.<\/p>\n “I have to say the reason the state’s management of renewable fish resources, the primary reason is because we started out with pristine conditions,” Woodby said. “We can’t afford to lose those conditions.”<\/p>\n He said he opposes the bill.<\/p>\n Dan Hotch of Chilkat Indian Village is also giving testimony.<\/p>\n He said people in the village are donating fish and moose to keep school lunch programs going in the village.<\/p>\n “I guess I’m asking for help in protecting our rivers and streams,” Dan Hotch said. “We cannot sustain that eternal village with polluted water.”<\/p>\n He said Klukwan means eternal village.<\/p>\n Dan Cannon of Juneau is now at the mic.<\/p>\n “We’re not talking cleaning fish or motor boats or even private septic systems,” Cannon said.<\/p>\n He said he doubts, if the bill became law, that he would be able to nominate an ONRW.<\/p>\n Cannon said the bill will create a “maze of bureaucracy.”<\/p>\n 2:50 p.m.<\/strong><\/p>\n Guy Archibald and Hotch so far have spoken against the bill.<\/p>\n They’ve turned over the discussion to off-site testimony in Homer.<\/p>\n He characterized the bill as “nothing more than the mining lobby” attempting to get carte blanche for how it treats waters.<\/p>\n A caller from Haines is now on the line.<\/p>\n “I stand in opposition to 138,” he said.<\/p>\n 2:41 p.m.<\/strong><\/p>\n About 15 minutes ago, Hannan referenced the possibility of getting to public comment.<\/p>\n However, representatives kept a stream of questions coming. At least one person left in the interim.<\/p>\n Public testimony is now open.<\/p>\n 2:33 p.m.<\/strong><\/p>\n Rep. Sara Rasmussen, R-Anchorage, asked if the commission members would be subject to legislative review.<\/p>\n Kopp said no to emphasize it is a “professional advisory commission,” and to depoliticize the commission.<\/p>\n Rasmussen said if there was legislative approval, it would act as a check if governors and future Legislature’s were from opposite parties and would possibly make the advisory commission appointments less political.<\/p>\n Spohnholz about nomination process and how nominators would create a cost-benefit analysis.<\/p>\n She said it would seem to be a high bar for individuals or small tribes to clear.<\/p>\n “Have you considered having the commission be responsible for some of the more in-depth analysis?” Spohnholz said.<\/p>\n Kopp said the bill is about policy, not science and the required information may not be especially stringent.<\/p>\n “I don’t see it as being prohibitive at all,” Kopp said. “Once a packet is complete, I do see a commission working with the nominee to come up with additional information they may ask for.”<\/p>\n 2:20 p.m.<\/strong><\/p>\n Hannan how other states handle designating ONRWs.<\/p>\n Kopp said it’s a good question but something he hasn’t dug into.<\/p>\n Tuck asked if there’s any other entity that would represent local governments aside from the Alaska Municipal League in light of the proposed water advisory commission’s inclusion of a local government seat.<\/p>\n Hopkins asked how “resident” will be defined in the bill.<\/p>\n Fulton said it does not have to be an individual person. It could be a corporation or organization.<\/p>\n Hannan asked if a federally recognized tribe not incorporated in the state of Alaska could make a nomination.<\/p>\n “I would want any tribe that is part of our state to ahve that voice,” Kopp said.<\/p>\n Hannan said the bill should make it clear that a tribal citizens can nominate ONRWs.<\/p>\n 2:12 p.m.<\/strong><\/p>\n Rep. Sara Hannan, D-Juneau, asked about the five water nominations and if the nominations have all come from Alaska Native tribal organizations.<\/p>\n A Kopp staffer said some of the applications have multiple nominators.<\/p>\n Rep. Geran Tarr, D-Anchorage, asked how public comment would factor into the process.<\/p>\n Kopp said the process would include public comment.<\/p>\n Tuck asked if there are any ONRWs in Alaska.<\/p>\n Kopp said he’s not aware that Alaska has any.<\/p>\n Tuck asked if the Legislature could change an ONRW to a lower tier of protective designation.<\/p>\n Kopp staffer Trevor Fulton said that’s something Kopp’s office asked, and it seems the general consensus is if the Legislature puts something into statute, it can be removed from statute.<\/p>\n 2 p.m.<\/strong><\/p>\n Rep. Chris Tuck, D-Anchorage , asked if a nomination could still go straight from a nominator to the Legislature.<\/p>\n Kopp said that’s correct.<\/p>\n Rep. Grier Hopkins, D-Fairbanks, asked if there might be some matters so pressing that the designation could simply be made by the water advisory commission.<\/p>\n Kopp said ONRW designations are so sweeping, the Legislature should be part of the process. He said the commission’s involvement could be a plus, too.<\/p>\n “I think this really depoliticizes the process,” Kopp said.<\/p>\n 1:52 p.m. <\/strong><\/p>\n The proposed water advisory commission would include commissioners from the departments of Natural Resources, Environmental Conservation and Fish and Game. It would also include a member of a “tribal entity or Native corporation,” an environmental or conservation non-governmental organization, a resource development NGO, and a local government. <\/p>\n Kopp said as outlined in the bill, whether something became an ONRW would be known within one year of nomination.<\/p>\n He said the process would be fair, evidence-based and ultimately subjected to legislative approval.<\/p>\n 1:45 p.m. <\/strong><\/p>\n So far five bodies of water have been nominated to be ONRWs since 2012, according to Kopp. <\/p>\n “Per DEC policy, nominations have been returned to the nominators with a letter referring them to the Legislature,” Kopp said. <\/p>\n He said Article 8, Sections 2 and 7 of the state constitution lays out the case for the Legislature designating ONRWs. <\/p>\n “The legislature may provide for the acquisition of sites, objects, and areas of natural beauty or of historic, cultural, recreational, or scientific value,” states Section Seven of the constitution<\/a>. “It may reserve them from the public domain and provide for their administration and preservation for the use, enjoyment, and welfare of the people.”<\/p>\n