The Observer, September 2003

return to this edition

Council tracks development push as new governor and legislators take control

With the governor’s mansion and the Alaska House and Senate all in the hands of pro-development Republicans, the 2003 legislative session saw numerous efforts to ease restrictions and regulations on natural-resource extraction in the state.

The effort, spearheaded by incoming Gov. Frank Murkowski, was largely successful. Fortunately, none of the measures that saw action struck directly at the heart of the citizens’ council’s mission to promote environmentally safe operation of the Valdez Marine Terminal and associated tankers.

However, some measures on environmental issues were of enough general concern that the council took action during the session. Most of our attention was focused on two of the governor’s bills. The measure of greatest interest was one making extensive changes to the Alaska Coastal Management Program, greatly reducing the role of local communities in the permitting of development projects. The other measure of council interest lengthened the contingency plan renewal cycle from three years to five.

Alaska Coastal Management Program

As first introduced, this legislation would have eliminated local Coastal Resource Service Areas, the local groups that review proposed projects for consistency with local regulations, and the Coastal Policy Council, which hears appeals from consistency determinations.

After much protest by the Alaska Municipal League, the citizens’ council, and others, the Murkowski administration drafted a substitute bill that retained the coastal service areas and preserved their local enforceable policies - - that is, the local rules governing projects in the coastal zone.

But the final version of the bill did eliminate much of the right of coastal service areas to impose local enforceable policies regarding air, land, or water quality, or a host of other subjects.

Many districts felt the bill removed their ability to regulate any aspect of coastal projects to protect their local resources. During hearings, the administration claimed the core of local authority would be retained, but the wording of the bill makes it doubtful that local communities will continue to have the ability to impose meaningful local policies, according to Doug Mertz, the council’s legislative monitor for the session.

Local districts were also concerned because the bill requires them to review and submit changes in current policies to conform to the new law on a tight schedule without a guarantee of state financial support.

The council was quite active on this bill, writing several letters to the administration and to the chairs of committees that held hearings on the bill. The council argued unsuccessfully that problems with the bill could best be resolved by holding it and creating a task force of stakeholders to work on it over the legislative interim.

In addition, the council organized a grass-roots campaign via email to advise coastal organizations -- including the council’s member entities -- on the effects of the bill and how they could contact legislators and the administration with their concerns and their proposals for fixing the problems in the bill.

After the main coastal management bill passed, the situation for local residents became worse. A House bill that initially had nothing to do with the coastal management program was amended late in the legislative session to restrict the ability of persons other than local districts and permit applicants themselves to appeal coastal management decision. The bill also declared all Cook Inlet oil and gas projects to be in compliance with coastal management laws.

Contingency Plan Renewal Cycle

Another bill of council interest increased the period for contingency plan renewals from three years to five years. The bill passed the Legislature with little opposition and was signed into law by the governor. The council contacted legislators voicing some concerns over the bill, but did not actively oppose it.

Air Quality Legislation

The council tracked a handful of other bills, but ended up not taking action for or against them. Foremost among these was a measure changing how air quality emission permits are processed.

Murkowski’s transmittal letter described this measure as making air-quality permitting more “efficient” and “predictable.” It was largely the product of an air quality working group of many stakeholders, including the citizens’ council. Among other things, it allows the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to incorporate some aspects of federal permitting that do away with individualized permits in favor of general permits based on best management practices.

The council retained a contractor to analyze this measure. After the contractor concluded it comported with the conclusions of the working group in which the council participated, the council elected not to oppose the bill.

State Budget

While the governor’s cuts to the state budget have made headlines across Alaska all summer, none of them had a major impact on the budget for Spill Prevention and Response in the Department of Environmental Conservation, which is the state agency most active on issues of concern to the council. Most of the Spill Prevention and Response budget comes from a dedicated fund based on oil flow through the trans-Alaska pipeline, and that money cannot be used for any other purpose.