January 8, 2003
January 13, 2003
January 15, 2003
January 17, 2003
January 20, 2003
January 22, 2003
January 24, 2003
January 27, 2003
January 28, 2003 – Public Hearing
January 31, 2003
February 3, 2003
February 5, 2003 – Joint Meeting
February 7, 2003
February 10, 2003
February 12, 2003
February 14, 2003
February 17, 2003
February 19, 2003
February 21, 2003
February 24, 2003
February 26, 2003
February 28, 2003
March 3, 2003
March 5, 2003
March 10, 2003
March 12, 2003
March 17, 2003
March 19, 2003
March 21, 2003
March 24, 2003
March 26, 2003
March 28, 2003
March 31, 2003
April 2, 2003
April 7, 2003
April 9, 2003
April 14, 2003
April 23, 2003
April 28, 2003
DATE: | January 8, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 pm |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Brandt, Burtenshaw, Cameron, Kennedy, Little, Schroeder, Stennett, and Williams. |
MEMBERS ABSENT/EXCUSED: |
None |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:40 p.m.
Chairman Noh welcomed new members of the committee and introduced Lawrence Wasden, Attorney General, informed the committee his office is He then introduced William von Tagen, Deputy Attorney General, Von Tagen presented to each member of the committee a copy of the Upon further inquiry, Von Tagen stated a conflict of interest is defined as Following his presentation, the committee discussed various topics which There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting |
DATE: | January 13, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 pm |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, and Kennedy |
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:45 p.m.
Steve Allred, Director, Department of Environmental Quality, informed Allred stated the department budget is performance criteria based under a Some specific areas of interest are: Pit 9 at INEEL remains a controversial The Coeur d’Alene Basin is not anticipated to be a controversial issue this The environmental problems at the FMC plant in Pocatello are Allred stated there has been a significant improvement in air quality. In Upon inquiry from the Committee, Allred stated the department’s budget Upon inquiry from the Committee, Allred noted there is an effort among David Mabe, Administrator, Division of Water Quality, Department of Upon inquiry from the Committee, Mabe stated pollution trading is a tool There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting |
DATE: | January 15, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 pm |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, and Kennedy |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:35 p.m.
Scott Turlington of the Governor’s Office informed the Committee he is She noted in Montana the state management plan is proceeding, but in Caswell further informed the Committee of OSC has a plan towards Jim Caswell, Office of Species Conservation, informed the Committee of Greg Schildwachter, policy advisor, Office of Species Conservation, Sara Braasch, Idaho Cattle Association, reported ranchers throughout the Stan Boyd, Idaho Wool Growers Association, reported, as a member of the Upon inquiry from the Committee, Schildwachter stated the three state ten Upon inquiry from the Committee, Sarah Bigger, representating Senator Schildwachter stated the federal request is for $2.4 million. $l.3 million to Steve Huffaker, Director, Department of Fish and Game, stated the He stated the Commission and Department are very concerned about the Schildwachter reported the Governor has issued an invitation to Chairman Chairman Noh inquired of the status of the $300,000 contract for killing Upon inquiry from Senator Cameron, Huffaker stated Graham’s list of Senator Schroeder noted there has been a significant increase in the price Senator Cameron inquired about specifics of the contract. Huffaker stated Senator Cameron stated a number of the Commissioners intended on Chairman Noh stated the Committee was fortunate that JFAC chose not to Senator Burtenshaw stated his concern the length of time for contract Senator Burtenshaw stated several Senators have been trying to get that Senator Burtenshaw commented the Department had studies on fish and There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting |
|
DATE: | January 17, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 pm |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, and Kennedy |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:35 p.m.
Motion by Senator Pearce to approve the minutes of January 8, 2003, and Alex Irby, Chairman, Idaho Fish and Game Commission, introduced the Marcus Gibbs stated he was proud to be reappointed to the Commission. Upon inquiry from the Committee, Gibbs stated he does not favor dam Upon further inquiry, Gibbs stated he considered himself an independent
Upon motion, seconded and carried during the Committee Verbatim transcript from Senate Resources and
appearance before the Committee for confirmation: Senator Williams: I see you are an independent on your Chairman Noh: Yes, Chairman, that’s the party affiliation Gibbs: Senator Williams, I was asked that question three Senator Schroeder noted in Latah County there are several meat cutters, Senator Kennedy stated that some of the deer and elk in Elmore County Senator Kennedy inquired about a monthly publication entitled “Contact.” Senator Kennedy requested Committee time be set aside to delve into Upon inquiry from Senator Pearce, Gibbs stated the Commission has a In response to an inquiry, Gibbs stated that he was an independent to Upon inquiry of proposed legislation pending in the Idaho House of Upon inquiry from Senator Stennett, Gibbs stated the Department of Fish Senator Cameron noted Idaho representatives to the Northwest Power Sarah Braasch, Idaho Cattle Association, noted the organization’s support Jim Hagedorn, Viola, Idaho, a member of Concerned Sportsmen of Idaho, John Watts, putting his lobbyist identification badge in his pocket, Chairman Noh noted his conversations with Watts about conflicts of Upon inquiry from Senator Williams, Watts replied the Commission Upon inquiry, Watts reported he had a great deal of respect for Idaho’s Butch Olson, Middleton, chairman, winter feeding, urged the Committee Kip Bryson, Pheasants Forever, urged the Committee to support the Herb Meyr, Mountain Home, urged the Committee’s support of Watts’ Steve Goddard, Mountain Home, also asked the Committee’s support of Jeff Barney, Boise, supports Watts’ appointment to the Commission. Jane Gorsuch, Intermountain Forest Association, recommends the Sarah Braasch, Idaho Cattle Association, supports Watts’ appointment. Stan Boyd, Idaho Wool Growers Association, supports Watts’ Lauren McLean, Idaho Conservation League, recommended the Senator Stennett expressed concern regarding the legality of the Oath of There being nothing further to come before the Committee, the meeting |
DATE: | January 20, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 pm |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, and Kennedy |
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
Senator Cameron absent. |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:35 p.m.
At the request of Senator Stennett unanimous consent for the gubernatorial Jeff Youtz, Supervisor, Budget and Policy Analysis, Legislative Services Youtz explained the Department of Parks and Recreation budget as set forth The inflationary adjustments allowed state agencies to request an inflationary Replacement items are the reinstatement of equipment needs. DPR has FTP represents full time personnel. Seasonal positions are not reflected in The Governor does recommend DPR’s line item budget for the Eagle Island Youtz noted the DPR Board has made a conscious effort that capital Youtz stated JFAC will be looking at further reductions depending upon the Ray Houston, Analyst, Budget and Policy Analysis, Legislative Services Upon inquiry, Steve Allred, Director, Department of Environmental Quality, Houston further explained DEQ’s budget noting the Department has been Upon inquiry from the Committee, Allred stated the Department is in a status There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting |
DATE: | January 22, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 pm |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:35 p.m. | |
Motion by Senator Burtenshaw to confirm the gubernatorial reappointment of Marcus Gibbs to the Fish and Game Commission; seconded by Senator Williams. Substitute motion by Senator Stennett to not confirm the gubernatorial Roll call vote on substitute motion: Ayes: Kennedy and Stennett Nays: Brandt, Burtenshaw, Cameron, Little, Pearce, Schroeder, Williams Substitution motion failed. Roll call vote on original motion: Ayes: Brandt, Burtenshaw, Cameron, Little, Pearce, Schroeder, Williams Nays: Kennedy and Stennett Original motion carried. Motion by Senator Schroeder to approve the gubernatorial appointment of Stennett. Motion carried on voice vote. Pro Tem Geddes will be floor sponsor for Gibbs and Senator Little will be Chairman Noh informed the Committee concerning a letter sent to the Rick Collignon, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation, provided Collignon noted Idaho, with a tremendous amount of public land, has Collignon noted the 27 state parks are managed under partnership Upon inquiry from the Committee, Collignon stated 36 additional camp Upon inquiry about ATV’s, Collignon stated there is no difference in the Chairman Noh noted there will a joint committee hearing on Tuesday, Upon inquiry, Collignon stated there is not an state park in eastern Idaho Ray Houston, Analyst, Budget and Policy Analysis, Legislative Services, There are four instream flow water rights yet to be adjudicated in the Upon inquiry, Dreher explained the projected costs of the SRBA have In regard to the Silver Creek violation, Dreher stated the water users and Dreher noted there was a similar situation in connection with the Great Both of these violations are tied to budget reductions in connection with There are a total of 206 employees within the Department. Twenty-six Senator Stennett inquired why the stream channel protection program was Senator Schroeder inquired as to the status of the Palouse aquifer study of |
|
There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. |
DATE: | January 24, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 pm |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Schroeder, Williams, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
MEMBERS
EXCUSED: |
Senators Brandt, Burtenshaw and Cameron excused. |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:40 p.m.
Chairman Noh introduced Dick Smith, Forest Supervisor, Boise National Due to the decline in timber sales, Senator Larry Craig’s legislation Smith noted the establishment of a fifteen-member advisory committee The proposed changes in the National Fire Plan will affect all aspects and The Boise National Forest Management Plan revision should be completed Upon Senator Williams inquiry concerning the fuel loads in the forests, Senator Little expressed concern for the loss of 320 jobs in his area Ray Houston, Analyst, Budget and Policy Analysis, Legislative Services He noted there are some provisions for pickup trucks, field equipment and Upon inquiry, Houston stated most of the costs for attorney fees is covered Winston Wiggins, Director, Department of Lands, noted the Department Houston further stated the Commercial Leasing Program has an Houston noted the endowment earnings fund includes the public schools, The Department’s budget reflects spending authority for cumulative A department reorganization has shifted personnel to field offices so The new organizational chart of the Department is set forth in the Natural The budge book also contains graphic illustrations of the funding history Upon inquiry, Houston noted the Mine Closure Fund has an annual In regard to fires, Houston reported in 2002 there were 308 fires covering Wiggins further informed the Committee, there were 300 temporary Wiggins noted the Endangered Species Act is a significant issue on state Upon inquiry, Wiggins stated there has not been a challenge to any of the The status of the timber export law has been modified as the result of Land Upon inquiry, Chairman Noh informed the Committee will be addressing Upon inquiry from Senator Stennett as to the location of the Southwest There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting |
DATE: | January 27, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 pm |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:35 p.m.
Winston Wiggins, Director, Department of Lands, explained the The figures for endowment land revenues and expenditures by asset type The bulk of the revenues go into the earnings reserve. This fund is used to Wiggins reported there are approximately 600 cottage sites involved in the Upon inquiry from the Committee, Jay Biladeau, Assistant Director, Timber harvest in the state is based on a five-year inventory. The Ray Houston, Analyst, Budget and Policy Analysis, Legislative Services Scott Nichols, Chief, Bureau of Surface and Minerals Resource Nichols then explained the status of the Grouse Creek Mine by Hecla John Lawson, Department of Environmental Quality, stated the water Nick Krema, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Lands, reported the Chairman Noh stated there would be no formal committee meeting on |
|
There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. |
DATE: | January 28, 2003 |
TIME: | 6:30 pm |
PLACE: | Gold Room |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
MEMBERS ABSENT. |
Senator Cameron absent. |
The public hearing was called to order by Co-Chairman Noh. He noted the hearing is a follow-up to a hearing conducted by the Senate committee last year attempting to gain publicity regarding the concerns expressed about serious conflicts with ATV use, the state. Chairman Noh displayed a copy of the magazine “Dirt Wheels” containing photographs depicting riders’ misuse of lands. One picture has the statement “Instant gratification is not soon enough.” Another picture, depicting numerous riders on a ridge, states “Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.” He noted these do not represent the attitude of many people engaged in such activities. On April 22, 2002, the lead story on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, “Off Road Vehicles Now Fly the Waters of SW Texas” noted large four-wheel drive vehicles, not ATVs, had discovered that the beds of rivers and streams belong to the public. He noted many dozens were gathering to course up and down the river beds. Additionally, he noted an article in the Salt Lake City newspaper about the Mayor of Salt Lake City on a helicopter tour trying to find errant ATVs who were tearing up the front. The focus of the hearing is to try and find ways to deal with the problems so that responsible people can continue to enjoy their outdoor activities and recreation without damage to the resources and without imposing unnecessarily on the other users of the resources. Co-chairman Noh specifically thanked Representative Butch Otter, 1st Co-chairman Stevenson expressed his concern of the abuses connected with Co-Chairman Noh noted the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Rick Collignon, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation, remarked of the There are 68,521 registered ATVs and trail bikes in Idaho. In 1992, there were A survey of hunters conducted in Idaho by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land The baby boomer generation is the largest portion of the population segment to Collignon noted a year ago, BLM, US Forest Service, Department of Fish and Chairman Noh acknowledged Senator Little for providing a specific area for Ernest Lombard, Chairman, Parks and Recreation Board, stated the good thing Steve Huffaker, Director, Department of Fish and Game, stated the Department Lin Hintze, Chairman, Custer County Commissioner, explained the Dick Smith, Supervisor, Boise National Forest, stated he is new to the position Liz Close, Region 4, U.S. Forest Service, Deputy Regional Director of Jerry Rees, Supervisor, Caribou-Targee National Forest, stated the travel Rees noted education and enforcement are other issues. He stated common Susan Giannettino, Deputy State Director, Resources and Planning Division, Additionally, access information needs to be available to ATV users. She Wayne Weiner, Island Park/Twin Falls, stated his experiences in the Island Bill Jones, President, Idaho A.T.V. Association, Boise, speaking in behalf of Robert Nelson, Twin Falls, stated his comments are the same as previous Ron Stricklin, Idaho ATV Assn., Past President, related his positive personal Steve Gunderson, President, Idaho Trails Council, stated their organization is a Tom Judge, Idaho Bowhunters, provided a handout to the Committee Brent Madron, President, Treasure Valley Trail Machine Association, urged Brett Nelson, Ada County Green Party, urged the Committee to not overlook Jack Fisher, President, Idaho Wildlife Federation, inquired why the issue was Phil Homer, Boise, relinquished his time as his concerns had been spoken to by Clark Collins, Blue Ribbon Coalition, Executive Director, Recreation Division, Ted Howard, Shoshone-Paiute Tribe, Idaho Resources Advisory Council, Mike Ihli, Manager, Hewlett Farms, stated the Owyhee area has significant use Lauren McLean, Idaho Conservation League, noted their organization supports Russ Thurow stated he represents himself and other elk and deer hunters and is Jim Juker said he was representing himself. He has been riding ATVs for a There being no further matters to come before the joint committee; the meeting |
DATE: | January 31, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 pm |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:40 p.m.
Senator Keough introduced eighth grade students, along with their parents, Senator Keough then introduced RS 12451, proposed legislation to reduce Motion by Senator Little to send RS 12451 to print; seconded by Senator Marty Peterson, University of Idaho, introduced RS 112441, proposed Motion by Senator Schroeder to send RS 12441 to print; seconded by Karl Dreher, Director, Department of Water Resources, explained RS Harvey Walker stated to the Committee he felt the fee was unfair to small Norm Semanko, Idaho Water Users Association, stated their organizations Motion by Senator Cameron to send RS 12361 to print; seconded by Roger Fuhrman, Department of Fish and Game, introduced RS 12395, Motion by Senator Stennett to send RS 12395 to print; seconded by Fuhrman then explained H 4, legislation to fish and game to strike Motion by Senator Schroeder to send H 4 to the floor with a do pass After discussion by the Committee concerning the provisions of the H 5 providing for the transfer of lifetime licenses of a deceased minor Motion by Senator Schroeder to send H 5 to the Fourteenth Order; Substitute motion by Senator Cameron to hold H 5 in Committee; H 6, allowing the Department of Fish and Game to issue permits for live Motion by Senator Brandt to send H 6 to the floor with a do pass There being no further matters to come before the committee the meeting |
|
DATE: | February 3, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 pm |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, and Kennedy |
MEMBERS
EXCUSED: |
Senator Stennett excused. |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:40 p.m.
Senator Pearce, subcommittee chairman of the rules assigned to the Chairman Noh introduced Aaron Miles, representing the Nez Perce Tribe. Chairman Noh informed the Committee of a joint meeting with the House Steve Huffaker, Director, Department of Fish and Game, and Dr. Bob A national strategy was then developed for dealing with CWD in wildlife Upon inquiry from the Committee, Huffaker stated the disease is Dr. Bob Hillman, Department of Agriculture, informed the Committee that Chairman Noh stated in the sheep industry, the central nervous system Dr. Hillman stated the Department was not aware of any problems, but is Senator Schroeder inquired as to the disposition of animal heads after Huffaker stated the concern of the Department is the transmission between There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting |
DATE: | February 5, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 PM |
PLACE: | Gold Room |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
Senator Cameron absent. |
The meeting was called to order by Co-Chairman Stevenson at 1:40 p.m.
Co-Chairman Noh complimented and expressed appreciation to the Jim Caswell, Office of Species Conservation, explained to the joint Co-Chairman Stevenson acknowledged Keith Lawrence and Curt Mack, Michael Bogart, Legal Counsel, Office of the Governor, stated the Dr. Greg Schildwachter, Office of Species Conservation, reported the Upon inquiry from the Committee, Schildwachter responded to questions Bogart stated the draft proposal for proposed legislation is still being Schildwachter stated they are developing a time line for delisting and how Steve Huffaker, Director, Department of Fish and Game, explained the There being no further matters to come before the joint committee, the |
DATE: | February 7, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
Senator Cameron absent. |
MINUTES |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:40 p.m.
Motion by Senator Schroeder to approve the minutes of January 17, 2003; Substitute motion by Senator Stennett to include in the January 17, 2003, Substitute motion carried by voice vote of the committee. Motion by Senator Burtenshaw to approve the minutes of January 20, Motion by Senator Stennett to approve the minutes of January 22, 2003; Motion by Senator Williams to approve the minutes of January 27, 2003; Senator Stennett introduced RS 12758C1; proposed legislation to Jim Kempton introduced himself to the Committee and provided Susan Burke, Department of Environmental Quality, explained to the Motion by Senator Williams to return to sponsor RS 12894; seconded by Senator Williams requested his motion by withdrawn upon the consent of RS 12881 was introduced by Karl Dreher, Director, Department of Water Motion by Senator Kennedy to print RS 12881; seconded by Senator Norman Semanko, Idaho Water Users Association, explained RS 12842C1 Motion by Senator Pearce to send RS 12842C1 to print; seconded by Semanko then explained RS 112843, proposed legislation to ensure use of Motion by Senator Little to print RS 12843; second by Senator Kennedy. |
There being no further matters to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned 3:05 p.m. |
DATE: | February 10, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:40 p.m.
Motion by Senator Brandt to approve the minutes of January 31, 2003; Motion by Senator Schroeder to approve the gubernatorial appointment of David Mabe, Administrator of Water Quality Programs, Department of Senator Cameron inquired about the practice of incorporation of a Motion by Senator Little to print RS 12894; seconded by Senator Brandt. Motion carried by voice vote with Senators Williams, Burtenshaw and Mabe then explained RS 12925 would allow the Department of He indicated that those participating in the group should have one more Passage of the legislation would not be the last opportunity for the One benefit of state primacy is that it will allow the state to determine who Motion by Senator Schroeder to print RS 12925; motion dies for lack of Marty Peterson, University of Idaho, explained RS 12967 replaces S 1057 Motion by Senator Schroeder to send RS 12967 to print; seconded by |
|
There being no further matters to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. |
DATE: | February 12, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy. |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:40 P.M.
Rick Collignon, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation, introduced Randal Rice informed the Committee of his educational background, Latham Williams informed the Committee of his educational background, Upon inquiry from Senator Stennett, Williams noted his mailing address is Chairman Noh provided to the Committee copies of his recent The three reviewers of the lease, Peter Johnson, former Senator Bill Another area of importance pointed out by the three reviewers is assurance Chairman Noh informed the Committee that the Land Board has received Ken McClure, representative for West Rock/Tamarack, informed the
Kevin Beaton attorney, of Stoel, Rives of Boise, (previously Deputy The CWA was passed in 1972 pertains to all of the surface water in the Senator Little moved to approve the minutes of January 24, 2003; Senator Cameron moved to approve the minutes of February 3, 2003; |
DATE: | February 14, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Brandt, Little, Stennett and Kennedy |
MEMBERS ABSENT/ EXCUSED: |
Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Burtenshaw and Williams absent. |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:45 p.m.
Motion by Senator Schroeder to recommend the gubernatorial Motion by Senator Cameron to recommend the gubernatorial appointment Senator Keough explained S 1056 would reduce the minimum number of Motion by Senator Brandt to send S 1056 to the floor with a do pass Chairman Noh explained S 1106 reflects the organizational changes at the Honorable Roger Burdick, District Judge, Snake River Basin The SRBA Digest is almost completed which will enable a searchable Federal reserved water rights are always issues of concern. The Hells The Nez Perce’s in-stream flow claims are on appeal to the Idaho Supreme Upon inquiry, Burdick stated there is a split of case authority throughout Burdick explained three individuals from Arco petitioned the SRBA that Burdick stated Sage Willow is an important case to determine whether In the future, Burdick stated the A & B Irrigation District case addresses Basins 37, 36 and 57 are the first three basins considered in the SRBA. The off-reservation claims for springs and fountains, pursuant to the 1863 In Basin 29, the water right claims of the Sho-Ban Indian Reservation The scope of federal reserve water rights, pursuant to Public Water Two cases that have been appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court are LU Judge Burdick anticipates Basin 63, the Boise area, will be contested Senator Stennett then explained S 1098 will eliminate the practice of Steve Barton, Department of Fish and Game, explained to the committee Chairman Noh expressed the Committee’s appreciation to Toby Rood for There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting |
DATE: | February 17, 2003 |
TIME: | 2:00 PM |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, and Kennedy |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 2:00 PM.
Chairman Noh informed the Committee he would be making his Senator Schroeder suggested the Chairman request Joint Finance Senator Williams stated he wanted to be certain the Caine Center would be Chairman Noh noted the invitation from the WestRock/Tamarack Jim Caswell, Administrator, Office of Species Conservation, informed the An advisory group was developed included the Defenders of Wildlife Once the fund is depleted, there is no guarantee of additional funding. He The proposed guidelines recognize three types of losses plus approaches Upon inquiry, Caswell stated the funds are appropriated by Congress to Upon inquiry, Caswell clarified to the Committee that the federal funds Dr. Greg Schildwachter, Office of Species Conservation, informed the Chairman Noh noted according to the maps, the portion of Idaho, included There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting |
DATE: | February 19, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:40 p.m. | |
MINUTES: | Senator Kennedy moved the minutes of January 28, 2003, be approved; seconded by Senator Stennett. Motion carried. Ken McClure, representing WestRock/Tamarack LLC, introduced David Scott, Preconstruction, safety, environmental, indemnifications, taxes, assignment, An additional handout provided by WestRock/Tamarack provides an He noted some of the benefits to the state and county is the construction of a Stream channels have been restored pursuant to agreements with various A conservation easement on thirteen acres of WestRock/Tamarack real In connection to Valley County, WestRock/Tamarack will be responsible for 30 To the Cascade School District, regular payments will be made to cover the For Valley County services, $525,000 will be paid within thirty days of beginning The Committee was shown pictures of some of the buildings on the site at the Economic predictions, based on a full build out, were made by independent Senator Burtenshaw inquired as to the status of the grazing lease. Jay Biladeau, Department of Lands, stated the leasing right will cease because Upon inquiry from Senator Williams, Scott stated $48,000,000 has been Senator Kennedy inquired as to the owners of the limited liability company. Upon further inquiry, the current assets of the limited liability company will be Upon inquiry, Scott stated they have chosen to not put housing, in general, Senator Kennedy inquired as to the indemnification for the state by the McClure noted there were several lawyers involved in the negotiation of the Senator Stennett inquired as to the status of the reclamation plan and the The absence of an attached business plan to the lease was noted by Senator Upon inquiry from Senator Pearce, Biladeau stated one reservoir would be Chairman Noh inquired about the funding switch from Bank of America to pre-sales of real estate. Scott stated there was an exclusive arrangement with Upon inquiry from Chairman Noh, Scott stated he was not aware of any McClure informed the Committee, this type of project under a limited liability Upon inquiry, McClure stated he and his lobby associate, Molly Creswell, Upon inquiry from Senator Stennett, Kent Nelson, Deputy Attorney General, Scott explained to the Committee that skier days represents the number of Upon inquiry from Senator Kennedy, Scott replied there are currently five There being no further matters to come before Committee, the meeting was |
DATE: | February 21, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:40 P.M. | |
S 1098 | Senator Stennett requested S 1098 be withdrawn as he has been assured by Gtec and the Department of Fish and Game that implementation of the ability to prohibit the display of social security numbers on the point-of-sale devices will be instituted by July 1, 2003. S 1098 withdrawn at the request of the sponsor. |
S 1059 | Steve Huffaker, Director, Department of Fish and Game, explained S 1059 would authorize the Department to enter into reciprocal licensure agreements with federally recognized Indian tribes possessing reservation lands within the state. The reciprocal agreements would allow persons to hunt, fish or trap wildlife in designated areas. The Department, Indian Tribes, and the public will benefit from the reduction of dual licensing authorities. He informed the Committee that in 1994 the Department first entered into a reciprocal agreement with the Nez Perce Indians regarding fishing licenses. This was to address the problem of citizens not being able to identify Indian lands from other private lands for fishing and hunting purposes and citizens were unable to know which license they should properly have to fish or hunt. |
Motion | Motion by Senator Brandt to hold S 1059 in committee; seconded by Senator Williams. |
Substitute Motion |
Substitute motion by Senator Schroeder to send S 1059 to the floor with a do pass recommendation; seconded by Senator Kennedy. |
Roll Call Vote | Roll call vote on the substitute motion:
Ayes: Burtenshaw, Kennedy, Pearce, Schroeder, Stennett and Nah Nays: Brandt and Williams Absent: Cameron and Little |
S 1100 | Norm Semanko, Idaho Water Users Association, explained S 1100 which is legislation to define, encourage and support water conservation practices. Additionally, the legislation provides that water conservation does not subject water rights to forfeiture. |
Motion | Motion by Senator Burtenshaw to send S 1100 to the floor with a do pass recommendation; seconded by Senator Cameron. Motion carried on voice vote. |
S 1058 | Karl Dreher, Director, Department of Water Resources, explained S 1058. The legislation is to increase the fee to $100 for filing a protest against the approval of an application to appropriate water or against the approval of a change to an existing water right initiating a contested case. He stated the sole purpose of the proposed legislation is to provide equity. The fees for applicants were raised in 2000 to generate revenue for the escalating costs associated with processing the applications. The protest fee was not adjusted in 2000, but should have been as a matter of equity. He noted the amount required by an applicant could be considerable more than the proposed $100 fee for filing of a protest. The history for the protest fee began in 1994 with a $25 fee imposed and has not changed. |
Harvey Walker, Walker Ranches, Butte County, stated his opposition to S 1058 because he thought the legislation would place an economical burden for filing protests. |
|
Mitchell Sorensen, Sorensen Crop and Livestock, Basin 34, Big Lost River, expressed his opposition to S 1058, stated he has been farming for about twenty-five years. Twenty years ago, he had several protests filed against him. The $25 fee has slowed the filing of protests. The need for him to make applications for transfer has diminished. After having gone through the process of having protests filed against his applications, the process is meaningful because it helps educate the Department and the local interests and concerns, as well as the individual water users. He noted, often, much of the protest is emotional. He expressed concern whether raising the fee was the correct remedy versus better education. He cautioned against pricing the filing of a protest out of the due process range of individuals. |
|
Della Johnson, Nampa, expressed her opposition to S 1100, stating it would be one more attempt to exclude the citizens from filing a protest. She stated the legislation is an attempt to exclude citizens from participation in the democratic process. In all other applications for change (planning and zoning), such as appeals to the commissioners, the public is allowed to present their views without having to pay for the right to attempt to protect their property and quality of life. She said Idaho Code Section 42-222 sets forth the criteria required to be considered by the Department of Water Resources. She stated that without the filing of a protest the Department does not need to ascertain if the criteria is met and the application is granted. She related her experiences in connection with an application for a dairy water right nearby and her subsequent receipt of a threat of a $1,000,000 lawsuit. She stated the interrogatories filed were to intimidate and increased legal defense costs. As a result of the threats, intimidation, retaliation, loss of employment and economic hardship suffered by those in opposition to the industrial dairies, she was unwilling to put any one or any family in jeopardy. She noted it has cost the protestants significant funds to prepare for hearings which were postponed by the applicant’s attorney hoping to gain planning and zoning approval which would then be used as an excuse for the Department to grant the permit without merit. She urged the Committee to hold the legislation in Committee as she felt it was an assault on citizens’ rights. |
|
Norm Semanko, Idaho Water Users Association, reported their organization supports the legislation and has had the subject under consideration for several years. He stated the Department proposed the legislation to defer the incurred costs of processing the applications. He noted the stream protection program has been eliminated because of budgetary considerations and does not believe any further financial burden should be imposed on the Department. Semanko said it was possible for individuals to group together to file a protest instead of each filing individually. He expressed a concern to keep the Department of Water Resources financially solvent, noting the anticipated financial impact states and estimated $9,450 increase to the Department. |
|
Lynn Tominaga, Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, supports S 1058 and the statements made by supporters of the legislation. He noted the legislation addresses the question of fairness and equity. |
|
Chairman Noh informed the Committee, due to the lateness of the hour, S 1058 would be held over to Monday for further consideration by the Committee. |
|
The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m., due to a lack of committee time. |
DATE: | February 24, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:35 p.m.
Jake Howard, Executive Director, Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing Ray Lyon, Boise, Idaho, appeared before the Committee in behalf of his Scott Farr of Challis, Idaho, appeared before the Committee in connection Upon inquiry from the Committee, Farr stated the impact of wolves has Upon inquiry from the Committee, Farr stated he anticipates a guided wolf |
|
S 1058 | Karl Dreher, Director, Department of Water Resources, continued his presentation on S 1058 from the meeting of Friday, February 21, 2002. He provided to the Committee a copy of the Administrator’s Memorandum, Transfer Processing No. 24, the transfer processing policies and procedures, dated October 30, 2002. A copy is attached. Senator Kennedy stated he has been inundated with correspondence Motion by Senator Little to send S 1058 to the floor with a do pass Motion by Senator Kennedy to hold S 1058 in Committee; seconded by Roll call vote: Ayes: Brandt, Burtenshaw, Cameron, Kennedy, Pearce, Schroeder, Nays: Little Motion carried. |
S 1101 | Norm Semanko, Idaho Water Users Association, introduced S 1101, legislation to amend the existing law to provide that an objection to a digital boundary description of a water right in the Snake River Basin adjudication shall not be required to use similar technology-based descriptions; and to provide that the filing of a decree with the county recorder shall not supercede the legal description of irrigation district boundaries. Motion by Senator Burtenshaw to send S 1101 to the floor with a do pass |
S 1099 | S 1099 was explained by Karl Dreher, Director, Department of Water Resources. He stated the legislation would amend existing law to specify conduct that constitutes an illegal diversion or use of water; to authorize the director of the Department of Water Resources to take certain actions upon investigation of available information; to revise content requirements for notices of violation; to revise civil penalty provisions for specified illegal diversion or use of water; and to provide that designated action does not afford relief from certain civil liability. Motion by Senator Pearce to send S 1099 to the floor with a do pass Time having expired; the meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. |
DATE: | February 26, 2003 |
TIME: | 2:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
MEMBERS ABSENT |
Senator Cameron absent. |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 2:35 p.m.
Chairman Noh introduced Joe Jordan, Chairman of the Idaho Water |
|
Jerry Rigby of Rexburg, Idaho, informed the Committee he has been on the Board for eight years and an attorney for twenty-four years. He is the second generation attorney in his family handling water law issues. He noted he has been involved in water law since the Snake River Basin Adjudication began. Rigby stated the functions of the Board have been significant in the support of water programs throughout the state. Senator Kennedy noted, with pleasure, that Rigby’s political affiliation is Gary Chamberlain of Challis informed the Committee he ranches in the Robert Graham of Bonners Ferry reminded the Committee he is still truly Senator Keough informed the Committee of Graham’s cooperation and |
|
Richard Wyatt of Lewiston informed the Committee he is a third generation farmer in the Lewiston Orchards area. He appreciates the work of the Board in funding small town water projects. |
|
Motion | Motion by Senator Stennett to the approve the gubernatorial appointment of Scott Farr to the Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board; seconded by Senator Burtenshaw. Motion carried. Senator Little will be the floor sponsor. |
Motion | Motion by Senator Burtenshaw to approve the Idaho Fish and Game Commission appointment of Ray Lyon to the Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board. Motion carried. Floor sponsor to be determined. |
Time having expired; the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. |
DATE: | February 28, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
Senator Williams absent. |
MINUTES: | Motion by Senator Pearce to approve the minutes of February 5, 2003, with the correction of Senator Cameron present at the meeting; seconded by Senator Cameron. Motion carried. |
Motion by Senator Burtenshaw to approve the minutes of February 7, 2003; seconded by Senator Stennett. Motion carried |
|
Motion by Senator Kennedy to approve the minutes of February 10, 2003; seconded by Senator Little. Motion carried. |
|
Motion by Senator Cameron to approve the minutes of February 17, 2003; seconded by Senator Brandt. Motion carried. |
|
Motion by Senator Schroeder to send the Gubernatorial appointments of Jerry Rigby, Gary Chamberlain, Robert Graham and D. Richard Wyatt to the Idaho Water Resource Board to the floor with a do confirm recommendation; seconded by Senator Stennett. Motion carried. |
|
HCR 18 | Dean Sangrey, Department of Parks and Recreation, explained HCR 18 which is a concurrent resolution to reject a rule of the Department of Parks and Recreation relating to administration of parks and recreation areas and facilities. In explaining the rejected rule, Sangrey noted the House Resources and Conservation Committee was concerned about setting forth in the Idaho Code the definition of “family unit.” The intent of the Department was to clarify the definition in respect to camping sites. Motion by Senator Stennett to send HCR 18 to the floor with a do pass |
HCR 19 | Sangrey then explained HCR 19, a concurrent resolution approving an administrative rule of the Department of Parks and Recreation to impose a fee or charge for changing a reservation. He explained the rule was inadvertently included in the pending rules, instead of in the fee rules. The concurrent resolution corrects the error and allows the rule to go into effect. Karen Gustafson, Department of Administration, Office of Administrative Motion by Senator Stennett to send HCR 19 to the floor with a do pass |
H 56 | Karl Dreher, Director of the Department of Water Resources, explained H 56 is intended to revise the powers and duties of the Water Resource Board in regard to the Revenue Bond Program. Additionally, the legislation clarifies the loan repayment funds are not general fund monies. Norm Semanko, Idaho Water Users Association, stated their support of the Motion by Senator Little to send H 56 to the floor with a do pass |
H 124 | Norm Semanko, Idaho Water Users Association, explained H 124 relates to investment of irrigation district funds. The legislation would permit investment of surplus funds in additional warrants or bonds. The legislation was recommended by a bond counsel to change the existing statutes dealing with irrigation districts. He stated that irrigation districts are authorized under a law enacted in 1933 to operate as local improvement districts. Once an irrigation district is authorized to operate as a local improvement district, in an urbanized area they can make significant improvements. According to bond counsel, the irrigation districts are not able to invest surplus funds into the local improvement districts. He stated without the ability to invest surplus funds the districts have to go to another source of funding. This legislation would allow irrigation districts to put surplus monies toward the local improvement district activities which have already been approved. He noted this does not involve general funds but does involve the funds of the irrigation district being dedicated to those purposes. As Idaho becomes more urban, the local improvement districts by irrigation districts will increase and the legislation increases the flexibility to provide funding. Upon inquiry from Senator Burtenshaw, Semanko stated the district would Daren Coon, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, stated the legislation Motion by Senator Burtenshaw to send H 124 to the floor with a do pass |
H 208 | Lynn Tominaga, Executive Director, Idaho Ground Water Appropriators and representing the North Side Ground Water District, explained H 208 would revise the powers of Ground Water District Boards to vote on behalf of the membership in water district meetings. The change would allow an orderly and efficient method of voting. Presently Ground Water District board members are elected by the membership. He noted each individual ground water district member will have the right to vote his water rights at the water district meeting if written notice is given prior to the meeting. This would also save funding for the water districts and ground water districts if an issue of voting takes place at an annual meeting. He noted the ground water districts are recent governmental entities formed in 1995. The main purpose of the ground water districts is to try and provide mitigation for senior water right holders if there is an issue of conjunctive management to mitigate for any injury to the senior surface water holder. Tominaga stated the difference between the two districts is that the water district comprises the water right holders while the ground water district is an entity representing water right holders that provide mitigation. With the formation of water districts 120 and 130, a problem emerged at water district meetings for ground water users. Presently it is one man one vote at a water district meeting unless an individual would like to attend and vote his shares or water rights at the water district meeting. In water district 120, there are more than 2,000 irrigation wells while in a water district there are also more than 2,000 irrigation wells. If one individual requested at a water district meeting to vote his shares, it would be necessary to have 50 percent plus one to have a quorum to conduct the meeting. The ground water districts collect the assessment for the water district and for the water master. The ground water districts are the subdistricts within the water district. The legislation would allow the ground water districts to accumulate the assessments and be able to vote on behalf of the water right holders only at the water district meeting. Tominaga provided to the Committee a copy of two proposed amendments Upon inquiry, Tominaga explained why the amendments are forthcoming Upon inquiry from the Committee about how curtailment of use might Upon inquiry from Senator Cameron, Tominaga stated the Semanko stated the proposed amendment came from the legal counsel for Senator Kennedy expressed concern about the method being used for Senator Cameron inquired, if a water district appoints a credential Motion by Senator Kennedy to send H 208 to the fourteenth order; There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting |
DATE: | March 3, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
The meeting was to called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:40 p.m. | |
HJM 2 | Representative Charles Cuddy explained HJM 2. The memorial requests the U.S. Congress to recognize the recovery of endangered salmon in the Pacific Northwest is a national concern. Inasmuch as it is a national concern, the majority of funding for the recovery program should be appropriated from the federal budget. He noted the costs to date have changed the functions of many federal and private hydroelectric plants in the northwest, which has increased the cost of energy to the consumer. He stated the current recovery system does little to sustain native fisheries or reservoir levels. The recovery program is in the interest of all citizens of the United States and the costs of recovery should be distributed accordingly. Motion by Senator Brandt to send HJM 2 to the floor with a do pass |
HCR 12 | Jake Howard, Executive Director, Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board, explained HCR 12 is legislation to reject a rule proposed by the Board relating to qualifications and first aid cards. Upon inquiry from Senator Burtenshaw, Howard stated the legislation Brad Hoaglun, representing Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association, Motion by Senator Pearce to send HCR 12 to the floor with a do pass |
H 36 | Howard explained H 36 would allow the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board to develop a fee structure for expedited, electronic, resubmittal or emergency processing of applications. Additionally, the Board would establish a fee for the use of credit card payment of fees which would be the cost to the agency by the credit card company. The legislation would allow the Board to promulgate rules to establish fees The fiscal impact would initially be approximately $20,000 maximum and Hoaglun stated the Outfitters and Guides Association supports the Motion by Senator Schroeder to send H 36 to the floor with a do pass |
H 38 | Howard then explained H 38, legislation to allow the Board the option of multiple year licensing. He noted the change has been requested by the outfitters’ industry. This would allow the Board to license an outfitter or designated agent three to five years. The Board has not determined the number of years at this time. Hoaglun stated the Outfitters and Guides Association supports the Upon inquiry from Senator Kennedy, Steve Tobiason, attorney for the Senator Kennedy further inquired whether the licensure fees are used to Motion by Senator Cameron to send H 38 to the floor with a do pass |
H 40 | Howard explained H 40 is to change the license year from March 31 to an annual date of January 31. This would allow the outfitters to be licensed before the guides, who work for the outfitters. This will streamline the licensing process. He noted there are a significant number of guide applications in April and May in preparation of the white water season. Motion by Senator Burtenshaw to send H 40 to the floor with a do pass |
The Committee then reviewed and discussed the operations of the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board. Chairman Noh noted the organization has individual territories allocated by the Board. The activities are tightly regulated by the Board, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Department of Fish and Game, Department of Parks and Recreation and an in-house investigative and enforcement section of the Board. He noted it is significant how many are involved in fish and game violations. Howard informed the Committee he has been the Director since April. Currently the licensing process is driving all the other activities of the agency. He noted the agency needs to work hand-in-hand with the industry in dealing with issues important to maintain the industry. The backlog in the licensing process has hampered progress. Much of the legislation proposed this session is an attempt to improve the licensing process for the industry. This will allow the Board to focus on other aspects of the agency. Training and education are two areas in need of improvement. He stated there are violations which will be before the Board in the next couple of months. When there is a violation and an appearance before the Board, the Board is provided a good investigative information for their review of the violation. A significant problem noted by Howard is individuals who have never been licensed as an outfitter in the state. Currently there are two examples of advertising outfitting services in the state that are not licensed. The unlicenced outfitter in the state is basically going unchecked. It is becoming a fairly significant problem for the licensed outfitters. The licensing board in cooperation with the association and the industry are concentrate efforts on this problem. Howard stated the industry will be undergoing a change because of the continue and allow outfitters to diversify because of the changes on public He noted the agency is working closely with the Forest Service and the Upon inquiry; Tobiason informed the Committee he has not had a case Upon inquiry by Senator Stennett, Howard stated the South Fork of the |
|
There being no further matters to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. |
DATE: | March 5, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:40 p.m. | |
MINUTES: | Motion by Senator Brandt to approve the minutes of February 14, 2003; seconded by Senator Williams. Motion carried. Motion by Senator Williams to approve the minutes of February 19, 2003; |
H 43 | Ronald Litz, Assistant Director, Department of Lands, explained H 43, pertains to the Forest Practices Act, which was passed in 1974 in response to the Federal Clean Water act, and which governs activities of forest owners to insure that the forest resources are protected. It is funded by a combination of general funds and landowner assessments. The rate was set prior to 1993 and has not been increased since that time. The purpose of the legislation is to amend existing law giving the State Board of Land Commissioners authority to increase the annual assessment for private owners of forest lands whose total acres of forest lands are twenty-six acres or more from five cents per acre to a maximum of ten cents per acre. This will raise approximately $213,000 per year which will offset the cost of the programs implemented over the last few years that have put a demand on the funding, which includes anti degradation, cumulative watershed effects, stream segments of concern, as well as forest certification programs. Senator Noh inquired if general funds have increased since the original Jane Gorsuch, Vice President of Idaho Affairs for the Intermountain Forest Upon inquiry from Senator Burtenshaw, Litz stated FPA inspects logging Chairman Noh commented that periodically an audit tour is conducted to Senator Little noted this is a 100 percent increase and asked if the fund was Upon inquiry from Senator Burtenshaw, Litz stated the five cents were added |
MOTION: | Motion by Senator Little to send H 43 to the floor with a do pass recommendation; seconded by Senator Stennett. Motion carried. |
H46 | Litz presented H 46 pertaining to the fire pre suppression program, to amend existing law to allow the State Board of Land Commissioners to increase assessments for fire protection for private owners of forest lands with twenty-six acres or more from forty-five cents per acre to a maximum of sixty cents per acre. The legislation would also allow the State Board of Land Commissioners to increase the improved lot or parcel surcharge from ten dollars to a maximum of twenty dollars per improved lot. The Departments of Lands is responsible for suppressing all forest fires needs to fund crews, fire equipment and supplies. The actual cost of suppression is borne by the general fund, so the landowner assessment basically buys equipment. The current assessment is forty-five cents an acre with the remainder from the general fund. From the beginning, funding was on a fifty-fifty ratio, but the cost is now $1.08 per acre. It is clear that $.45 is below the threshold. The department estimates this will result in about $2 to 2.8 million a year. |
MOTION: | Motion by Senator Little to send H 43 to the floor with a do pass recommendation; seconded by Senator Stennett. Motion carried. |
H 35 | Jane Gorsuch, Idaho Forest Products Commission, stated H 35 will enhance a method to collect and distribute accurate, factual unbiased information on forest products in Idaho. The current statute provides for the assessment and fee from every sector of the industry, including the forest land owners, the mill operators, the employees who work in the mills and in the woods, the loggers and the truckers. Every aspect of this business sector has the self-imposed fee. Gorsuch told the committee that the statute has stood the test of time and is operating well. She noted the legislation is necessary to clarify to which calendar year assessments of the Idaho Forest Products Commission apply. Additionally, it will provide the information from which calendar year data is accumulated to calculate such assessments. The bill also provides that assessments will be paid to the Commission in accordance with rules adopted by the Commission. The reason for the legislation is because of the sale of a mill operation and |
MOTION: | Motion by Senator Cameron to send H 35 to the floor with a do pass recommendation; seconded by Senator Stennett. Motion carried. |
Chairman Noh provided a copy of the proposed letter and questions to the State Board of Land Commissioners in relation to the legislation authorizing a forty-nine-year lease for Tamarack, LLC, and requested any suggested changes or additions be provided to him. A copy is attached. Senator Cameron asked if the intent was to send the letter and questions to the Senator Kennedy informed the Committee of his role in reviewing the letters Upon inquiry from Senator Little, it was noted the proposed lands under H 488 Senator Pearce stated he talked with Ken McClure and the developers |
|
Chairman Noh provided to the Committee a copy of a Times News article of March 5, 2003, in which a federal judge barred a plan in Idaho to kill ravens, red foxes, raptors, badgers and magpies to study whether predator control would buoy the struggling sage grouse population. A copy is attached. |
|
The Chairman also provided a copy of the court memorandum decision of March 4, 2003, in this case. The court issued an injunction prohibiting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from participating in the Idaho Department of Fish and Game plan. A copy is attached. |
|
The Chairman welcomed the new Idaho Director of the Bureau of Land Management, K Lynn Bennett, and assistant, Jack Sepp. Bennett stated he anticipates a good working relationship with the committee because of the interest and concerned about public lands in Idaho. Bennett worked for the Bureau of Land Management for 32 years in four different states, including twice in Idaho. He was a range conservationist in the Burley district in the early 70’s and worked in Washington, D.C. for four years as Chief of Range Management. He returned to Idaho as manager of the Shoshone District. Thereafter he left BLM to ranch in King Hill in Elmore County. When his partners wanted to sell their ranch, this position became available. He stated he is experienced on both sides of the BLM fence with the experience of writing federal regulations, administering federal regulations as a district manager, and then had the regulations administered to him. He stated he was well aware of how the administration of BLM lands directly impacts people and affects communities across the state. The BLM manages twelve million acres of public land in Idaho, which is 22 percent of the state. Bennett stated he believes in using good science in making resource decisions, which means that they work with and respect all the people who use public lands. He noted that includes the miners, bikers, hunters, loggers, campers, livestockman, and it is BLM ‘s job to work with them. He is a proponent of multiple use and the BLM philosophy to follow the law, which is not easy as some are conflicting. He further stated we need to protect the land and its resources along with promoting the economic viability of the communities that depend on public lands. Bennett noted some of the issues in the Bureau area include a proposal to Another issue of high priority is off road vehicles. BLM has developed a Upon inquiry from Chairman Noh, Bennett stated stewardship contracting Senator Noh thanked Bennett for the review and asked how the committee Chairman Noh stated in view of the tight budget year, there had been talk of a There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting was |
DATE: | March 10, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. by Chairman Noh. | |
H 110aa | Senator Keough explained H 110, as amended in the House, is legislation to create a Lake Pend Oreille, Pend Oreille River Priest Lake and Priest River Commission and to provide for membership, duties and a fund. The commission shall consist of seven members: a chairman and four members, who may be residents of Bonner County who shall be selected by the Governor; and the regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Attorney General of the State of Idaho. The Governor of the State of Montana shall be an ex officio member of the commission. The duties of the commission shall be to study, investigate and select ways and mean of controlling the water quality and water quantity for the interests of the communities and the state of Idaho and for the survival of the native species of fish in the Pend Oreille Priest Basin. The native species are listed as: bull trout, westslope cutthroat, mountain white fish, pike minnow and the forage base for bull trout and kokanee salmon. She noted the commission would have the authority to study, investigate, Keough noted the legislation does not authorize the commission to Further, the legislation creates in the state treasury the fund which shall Keough stressed the concern of the communities of uncertainty of lake |
She further informed the Committee, Idaho Department of Fish and Game currently has influence on the issues because through their charter they have the responsibility to take care of the native fish and wildlife. The DFG has the ability and has assisted with the issue. When it becomes necessary for litigation, the community group has been required to hire the attorney and pursue preserving the lake level. The legislation is a consensus group of five to provide a mechanism for the local community to be able to engage the Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Services, and others who believe they have a claim to the water in the lake downstream. She noted there is some concern that the committee has neglected to name the Department of Fish and Game on the commission. Keough stated the department is already involved in the lake level issue in regard to the native fish. The legislation is seeking to compliment and add to the tools that the department provides. It is the view of the sponsors of the legislation, one of the first things the commission could do would be to develop an advisory committee on which any state entity or entity in the watershed would be appointed to the advisory committee to assure cohesive communication on all the issues that are present in the area. She noted there has been an additional concern that the legislation might harm or jeopardize the relicensing agreement of AVISTA of Cabinet Gorge Dam. Keough stated that is not the intent of the committee and the focus is on the lake levels and providing a mechanism by which the communities around the lakes and rivers have a way to deal with the issue. Representative George Eskridge informed the committee that it was Chairman Noh noted the dam was built as a flood control project by the Michael Bogert, Legal Counsel, Office of the Governor, stated the Falls. The operation by the Corp. is contained in the biological opinion Upon further inquiry from Chairman Noh, Bogert stated the water right, Senator Keough stated there is an outlet dam, managed by Avista, on Larry LaBolle, Manager, Avista Corporation, informed the committee that Chairman Noh noted the first apparent threat to Idaho water was the Bogert noted the handout provided to the Committee, (a copy is attached) Chairman Noh stated Bogert’s letter, provided to the Committee, is an Senator Kennedy noted H 110 is one page long while the Attorney General Senator Kennedy stated according to H 110 the commission does not have Upon inquiry from Chairman Noh, the five individuals who drafted the Senator Kennedy inquired regarding the membership of the commission Upon further inquiry from Senator Kennedy, Senator Keough stated there Bogert stated the mitigation monies are going into conservation projects Senator Kennedy further inquired as to the funding sources for the Chairman Noh inquired whether future funds that would normally go to an Senator Stennett inquired as to why a prohibition on commission The first amendment describes the establishment of minimum lake levels. Senator Stennett inquired as to the term “perpetually appropriated.” Time having expired; the discussion was continued to Wednesday, March |
DATE: | March 12, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, |
MEMBERS
EXCUSED: |
Senators Cameron and Kennedy excused. |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:40 P.M.. | |
H 67 | Rick Collignon, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation, explained H 67 is legislation relating to species conservation, specifically native wild plants. The department currently has responsibility and funding for protection of native wild plants. The department proposes that these responsibilities and funding be transferred to the Department of Fish and Game. He noted the Department of Fish and Game currently operates the Conservation Data Center which maintains inventories of plants. He stated the staff at Department of Fish and Game has the expertise in this area. The proposed change by H 67 will avoid unnecessary duplication of responsibilities. Funds allocated to Department of Parks and Recreation for this purpose would be shifted to the Department of Fish and Game. Upon inquiry from Senator Pearce, Collignon responded the oversight and David Hensley, Office of Species Conservation, stated OSC supports the Virgil Moore, Department of Fish and Game, stated upon inquiry from Roger Fuhriman, Department of Fish and Game, upon inquiry from |
Motion by Senator Pearce to send H 67 to the floor with a do pass recommendation; seconded by Senator Williams. Motion carried. |
|
H 110aa
continuation |
Senator Keough presented to the committee proposed amendments to H 110aa (copy is attached), which would stagger the terms of the five appointed members of the commission. Additionally, the amendments add the Department of Fish and Game and Department of Lands as agencies with which the commission would have authority to work. Monies in the fund “may” consist of appropriations was another proposed amendment. After discussion by the Committee, Senator Burtenshaw proposed deletion |
Motion by Senator Brandt to send H 110aa to the fourteenth order; seconded by Senator Williams. Motion carried; Senator Stennett voting nay. |
|
H 64aa | Collignon reported that H 64aa clarifies the identification number on snowmobiles shall be attached. Additionally, the legislation would authorize the director of the department to approve exemptions to the rule requiring nonresident snowmobilers to purchase a nonresident user certificate in order to operate within the state. This would allow snowmobilers who utilize trails in a neighboring state that enter into Idaho to use the Idaho portion of the trails without purchasing a nonresident certificate. The original legislation was amended in the House as set forth in section (4) on page two of H 64. (A copy is attached.) Sandra Mitchell, representing State Snowmobile Association, |
Motion by Senator Brandt to send H 64aa to the fourteenth order; seconded by Senator Burtenshaw. Motion carried. |
|
There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 P.M. |
DATE: | March 17, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
Senator Cameron absent. |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:40 p.m. | |
H 4 | Steve Barton, Department of Fish and Game, explained H 4 would eliminate requirements for the Department of Fish and Game to compile and disburse a list of persons who have been denied hunting and/or fishing privileges. The information is now part of the Department of Fish and Games’ computerized system and is provided to conservation officers. The requirement for the printed list is obsolete. The legislation would allow the department to more efficiently enforce license revocations and not burden the license vendors. |
Motion by Senator Little to send H 4 to the floor with a do pass recommendation; seconded by Senator Burtenshaw. Motion carried. |
|
H 295 | Steve Tobiason, attorney for the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board, explained H 295 would allow the Board to obtain injunctive relief from the district court for violations of the Outfitters and Guides Licensing Act. The legislation also clarifies the authority of the Board to pursue administrative action concerning a lapsed license. The legislation would restrict the scope of the two-year statute of limitations on civil actions filed by the Board. He noted the legislation is supported by the Outfitters and Guides Association. The two main issues of the legislation address unlicenced commercial outfitting and guiding and a lapsed license. The legislation would clarify procedures if the Board elects to file a civil action for injunctive relief. Injunction relief can only be obtained through the district court. Upon inquiry from the committee, Tobiason explained the judicial process and explained the various terminologies pertaining to the various types of injunctive relief that could be issued by the court. The issue of a lapsed license and a violation need to be addressed because Jake Howard, Executive Director, Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing Howard noted that the problem of alleged violations by a licensed operator Brad Hoaglun, lobbyist, representing Outfitters and Guides Association, stated the organization supports the legislation. He noted the association |
Motion by Senator Kennedy to send H 295 to the floor with a do pass recommendation; seconded by Senator Brandt. Motion carried. |
|
Jim Unsworth, biologist, Department of Fish and Game, informed the Committee of the Access Idaho program which has now been renamed Access Yes so as to avoid confusion with the state information web site. Access Yes is a proposal developed by the Fish and Game Advisory He noted the programs in other states cost between $1-2,000,000 which Some of the sample proposals are 1200 acres in the Panhandle for white-tailed deer and turkey hunting; 14,500 acres of pheasant hunting land in Upon inquiry from Senator Little, Unsworth stated under current statutes |
|
Unsworth then informed the committee on the cooperative wildlife disease program and the Caine Center. The program was created by the Legislature several years ago to address the wildlife-domestic diseases concerns throughout the state. One veterinarian position was funded by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Fish and Game to begin a cooperative joint project through the Caine Center. There is a second veterinarian funded by the Department of Fish and Game as of last fall. There are three support staffs at the wildlife health laboratory. The Department of Fish and Game’s laboratory is near the Caine Center. It was a University of Idaho facility, but the department has a hundred-year lease from the University of Idaho. The department’s facilities for wild animals disease research includes big horn sheep, elk and buffalo. Part of the role of the facility is to work with Caine Veterinary Teaching Laboratory on specific research projects. Research projects dealing with domestic and some wildlife interfaces are evaluated annually by representatives of various departments and the University of Idaho. There is additionally some work with domestic goats and whether there can be disease transmission between Big Horn sheep and goats. Long-term monitoring of elk with the brucellosis along with some contraception work with bison are other programs underway. He noted the facility works closely with the Department of Agriculture. Upon inquiry from Chairman Noh, Unsworth stated the Department of Senator Williams inquired about the feasibility of joint facilities. Chairman Noh noted the lease by the Department of Fish and Game from |
|
Dr. Bob Hillman, Department of Agriculture, stated there has been discussion for an improved Department of Agriculture laboratory with the University of Idaho and the Department of Fish and Game. The Caine Center lab and the wildlife lab are limited to research but do not have the staff or equipment to do a lot of diagnostic work. The basic facility is very old and in need of upgrade, but is limited to what may be done due to urban expansion. There is a definite need for isolation areas for research. Another consideration is Homeland Security. USDA began a process of identifying and upgrading regional laboratories into a national laboratory network. Certain laboratories would be designated for certain diseases. Idaho will continue to be involved in brucellosis research because the laboratory is one of a few in the country that can do this type of research because of isolation facilities. |
|
John Chatburn, Department of Agriculture, noted the discussions with the Department of Fish and Game and the University of Idaho, there is a need a good research facility in Idaho. The Department of Agriculture feels strongly that the ability to confine animals and complete research projects must be continued in Idaho. |
|
There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. |
DATE: | March 19, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
MEMBERS
EXCUSED: |
Senator Brandt excused. |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:40 p.m. | |
Jay Biladeau, Department of Lands, stated it is the responsibility of the Land Board to manage the state endowment trust lands for the maximum financial return to benefit the beneficiaries of the trust. H83 adds lands to the code which will provide for long term leasing of those specific parcels. Long term leasing is a tool which would enable maximizing the financial return. He stated the Land Board and Tamarack entered into a ten-year lease on the acreage for a ski hill and golf course. The transaction was a cumulation of several years of studies, agreements and negotiations with various investors. He said numerous public meetings and work sessions were held. In April of 1999, Valley County granted conceptual approval of the proposal. In September of 1999, the Land Board directed the Department of Lands to publish a request for proposals on the endowment lands covered by the application. The only proposal submitted was by WestRock/Tamarack. A seven-member review committee was appointed to review the proposal. The committee was composed of representatives of Valley County, Department of Land, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Commerce, Department of Finance, a private ski consultant and ski hill specialist from the U.S. Forest Service. In February 2001 a refined proposal was submitted downsizing the project and was reviewed by the committee. A hearing was held by the Land Board in February 2002 to accept additional public testimony and comments on the project. He noted the Land Board has worked closely with Valley County throughout the process. In May 2002, Valley County Planning and Zoning unanimously approved WestRock/Tamarack’s development plan and issued conditional use permits to begin development. He noted the lease and project were approved after many opportunities for public input. In issuing the lease, the Land Board made a business decision based on their reviews and studies. The decision maximizes the financial returns to the beneficiaries of the endowments. The lease is currently for a ten-year period, but negotiations surrounding the lease and the intent of the lease are for a long-term project. Biladeau stated terms of the lease provide that the lease will be automatically extended upon passage of the legislation authorizing a long term lease for those particular parcels of land. He stated one of the objectives of the Department of Lands in negotiating the lease was to require as much up front rental payment as possible. The rent for the first five years is $200,000 per year, and $400,000 representing the first two years’ rental was due upon execution of the lease. The remaining $600,000 for the following three years is due upon legislative approval for the long term leasing. He noted the rent is structured to provide a greater return after the first ten years of the lease. The project has a greater opportunity to succeed under a long term lease. He stated the use of the endowment land for a ski hill and golf course provide a greater return to the endowment than the previous use of the land. Biladeau stated the legislation is needed to assure the success of the development and to help continue an increase financial return to the endowments. Biladeau acknowledged in attendance was Kent Nelson, Deputy Attorney General, who crafted the lease, and Winston Wiggins, Director, Department of Lands. Upon inquiry from the committee that approval of the lease would Senator Cameron inquired as to how many committee members submitted Senator Stennett stated the lease presented to the Committee can be Senator Stennett noted the project has been presented on a positive note, |
|
Terry Gestrin, Chairman, Valley County Commissioners, supports passage of the legislation in order that the project may progress. He stated Valley County has been diligent in their efforts in land use planning on this project. He noted the state is outside their purview they must enter into partnership with the Department of Lands to review the project. He stated one particular question submitted to the Land Board pertains to Valley County. He noted there have been two sets of consultants that have been hired for an independent assessment of the impacts. A report was prepared by CHM2 Hill. The economist was John Church. Dr. Bob Haley reviewed the impact to schools. A transportation model was prepared by CHM2 Hill for Valley County for the infrastructure impacts. As a result, a capital contributions agreement was signed by the developer with Valley County to provide funding for taxing entities and service providers that would be impacted prior to the property tax taking effect. He stated there was funding for the hospitals and the school districts. Tamarack has been in contact with the taxing entities advising them of the project status so they can anticipate when impacts will begin. Payments made to those entities are clearly outlined. He noted the developer’s share of the impact to the roads and bridges is estimated at 30 percent. There have been more than 200 staff level meetings with the developers and their advisors, 76 public meetings and hearings with the planning and zoning and Board of County Commissioners. Through the public hearing process, 99 issues were identified and resolutions reach on each issue. He noted the developers have also entered into agreement with the Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Fish and Game, Department of Parks and Recreation, Department of Transportation and Department of Water Resources. There was also an agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding a tree that blew down which contained an eagle’s nest. He stated Trout Unlimited supports the project. He noted that the Army Corps of Engineers has issued their 404 wetlands permit. All the steps have been taken and there is an agreement with the North Side Sewer District to sewer that side of the reservoir which will assist in the reduction of the phosphorous level. There is an agreement with the Idaho State Snowmobile Association to mitigate impacts that may result to the snowmobile community. Gestrin stated Valley County is working with the Department of Lands in the coordination of activities when construction begins to assure compliance and protect the state’s interests as set forth in the lease and the conditional use permit. He noted Valley County has improved their building ordinances in the last five years as a result of the project. Valley County’s Building Department has the ability to assess a fee for the building permit so experts can be hired to review the plans and have an inspector on the project site in partnership with the Department of Lands. Gestrin stated the project has had more studies and more conditions tied to it than any other project in the state. He noted now is the time to see if the project will actually work. As a local elected official of Valley County, he appreciates the efforts of the Committee. Chairman Noh noted the email from Archie Banbury, Valley County Gestrin stated he agrees with the assessment, but noted there has not been Chairman Noh indicated the due diligence conducted by the Land Board Chairman Noh noted that the state and the Legislature, by approving the Senator Stennett inquired as to an easement to the property and if the Upon inquiry from Senator Little, Gestrin stated the developers paid to |
|
Representative Chuck Cuddy informed the committee that fifteen years ago he negotiated a long term lease with the Land Board on a hydro project. He stated the negotiations involved a complaint in one hand and a final offer in the other. The long term lease was necessary so that financing for the project would be available. The project has been on line now for fifteen years. There is a kilowatt hour tax paid to the state which far offsets the amount the timber would have earned. |
|
Ric Branch, Indian Mountain Cattle and Horse Association, provided to a committee a statement by his father (a copy of which is attached). Branch stated he is the fifth generation cattle rancher in Idaho. His family has been in Idaho since 1890 and has had grazing allotments since 1917. He noted U.S. Senator Larry Craig’s Grandfather was one of the earlier permitees. They currently lease 640 acres of state land on the top of West Mountain and on the west side. Some of this land is included in WestRock’s lease, but they have the lease until December 2005. He noted the section originated with Drew Little in 1936, who was the first one to lease the land. It is possible that his father, Andy Little, had the land prior to that time. Indian Mountain bought it from Dwight Johnson, who bought it from Vern Little in 1965. Branch’s Father bought it from the Johnson Estate in 1973. He noted there was a significant change to the allotment in 1973 when a fence was removed allowing access to the east side of the mountain almost to Cascade Reservoir. The section included in the lease has excellent grass with some scrub brush, but there is no water on it. The only water on the mountain has been developed by the permitees. Stock ponds were built to keep the cattle back away from the fences. He noted the four other school sections were traded to the Forest Service for the Hillman land by Brownlee Reservoir for a wildlife management area. The state land is used by them as a deferred pasture about the middle of August. He noted there is a bull trout critical habitat in the headwaters of Anderson Creek and the Little Weiser River. The past two years the Forest Service has requested the cattle be moved by the tenth of August. About 350 head of cattle are then moved to the state section and surrounding Forest Service lands which enables access to the east side of the mountain and away from the critical bull trout habitat. He noted the grass was of significant value to all the permitees. If the development occurs, it would impact West Mountain and their allotment. The forms of activities would severely impact the cattle operation. He noted there is already a lot of activity on West Mountain with a jeep trail across the top out to the state section and then toward Council and a logging road which goes down to the bottom of the proposed ski hill. Their allotment has 1800 head of cattle which will jeopardize their Forest Service permits and result in a loss to the economic and tax base in Washington, Adams and Gem counties. There are eleven entities in the association. He stated the association hopes the forty-nine-year lease would not be approved, but if approved that the permitees be allowed to graze on the 640 acres on top and on the backside of the ski hill. He noted that Don Weilmunster, one of the parties involved in the project, has stated he would prefer that the association continue to graze the section except where buildings are constructed. He noted the section is a critical section to their grazing program. |
|
David Eaton, small business man, Valley County, stated his support for the project. He noted the project involves a total of 2,124 acres of land proposed for the lease after eight years and $48,000,000 in costs to date. The legislation only requests the extension of a ten-year lease along with payments forty-five times more than the existing lease. The use of the land would stimulate the economy by the creation of employment. He noted Valley County has a high unemployment rate. He stated the Land Board has reviewed the project for the past five years and there have been many hearings and assessments of the risk. He stated there is a significant list of organizations that have reviewed the project. He noted the project has improved over the past eight years while the way of life in Valley County has not changed. He stated he moved to McCall nine years ago, 225 businesses have opened and closed in that time; 6 of them in the last thirty days. The quality of life in Valley County will be impacted by the project. He hopes the committee endorses the legislation for economic growth and development. Chairman Noh noted the statement by Mr. Eaton that an affirmative vote |
|
Dick Rush, Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, supports the legislation. He stated investors and lenders would be hesitant to participate if the project has only a ten-year lease which would diminish the success of the project. |
|
Lincoln Hart, representing a group of concerned citizens of Valley County, stated their opposition. He noted everything he states is supported by documentation and has been presented to the state agencies for examination in the WestRock project. He stated they appreciated the questions submitted to the Land Board, but are disappointed in the Land Board’s responses. They believe the ski hill proposal for phase one is not commercially viable as required by the lease. He noted the lease requires one lift to the top of the mountain, but WestRock maintains they are not required by any language in the lease to put a ski lift to the top of the mountain but are to provide skiing from the top of the mountain. He stated this is an evasion of the spirit of the lease, if not technically objectionable. The proposed project does not sustain the viability of the lease because the proposal states a minimum development is necessary to sustain the viability of the lease and is estimated by establishing the minimum scope of the project components necessary to attract a certain number of guests on a year round basis to support the project. He noted WestRock further states that the proposed project that is necessary to sustain the viability of the lease is a substantial lift system, a 18-hole golf course, buildings, etc., but these are not provided for in phase one of the project. He noted the project is committed to only building a 9-hole golf course in phase one. The additional nine holes would be installed in phase two. WestRock has also testified in Valley County, the only additional ski amenities would be one additional lift for the entire development. Phase one of the project will be half the size of Brundage Mountain. In addition, he noted WestRock does not adhere to the terms of the proposal as it was submitted to the Land Board. What is now proposed invalidates the feasibility and financial studies and the revenue projections. All the projections are diminished by the reduction of the proposed project. The state should simply enforce the terms of the proposal as was submitted by WestRock to the Land Board and which was approved by the Land Board. The Department of Lands and the Land Board is not being asked to micro manage the day-to-day decisions, but simply enforce the terms of the proposal as was submitted. The new proposal negates the facts and information originally submitted. Hart further stated that reconsideration of the financial capabilities of the |
|
There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m. |
DATE: | March 21, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Kennedy |
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
Senator Stennett excused. |
MINUTES: | Motion by Senator Pearce to approve the minutes of February 21, 2003; seconded by Senator Burtenshaw. Motion carried. Motion by Senator Cameron to approve the minutes of February 24, 2003; Motion by Senator Cameron to approve the minutes of February 26, 2003; Motion by Senator Burtenshaw to approve the minutes of February 28, Motion by Senator Williams to approve the minutes of March 3, 2003; |
H 149 | Representative Mary Lou Shepard explained H 149 which is legislation to revise the duties of the Board of Commissioners and declaring an emergency. She noted the Coeur d’Alene Basin Commission was established to oversee the cleanup of the basin area. She noted the Basin Commission comprises a county commissioner from Benewah, Kootenai, and Shoshone and a representative from the federal government appointed by the President of the United States, a representative from the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, a representative from the state of Washington, and a representative from the state of Idaho. Representing Idaho on the commission is Steve Allred, Director, Department of Environmental Quality. She noted there was a question in the original legislation whether each of the three county commissioners would have a vote. This would allow each county commissioner to vote on all issues including the annual plan and the budget. All parties agreed that the law needed to be changed, but the veto vote would remain the same as before. The three county commissioners together will have a single vote. The state of Washington would not have a veto vote and that is not changed. She noted the project is 90 percent funded by the federal government and 10 percent by the state through the Department of Environmental Quality. Local control allows the letting of bids can be set at a cost which will allow local contractors to compete. She stated the importance is because much of the Coeur d’Alene Basin area has economic concerns. An additional change to satisfy federal requirements is that the trust of the commission shall be to their respective entities. She noted this is the first effort in the United States to conduct a superfund project in this manner. The project to date has worked well through the combined efforts of local interests for the cleanup’s success. Steve Allred, Director, Department of Environmental Quality, informed Motion by Senator Pearce to send H 149 to the floor with a do pass |
Rick Collignon, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation, informed the Committee on the status of the all-terrain vehicle project. The fifth of six public hearings was held to discuss management strategies. The department, along with the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, has been developing a management strategy for the existing roads and trails using the department’s resources for additional management to some of the critical sections of the proposed trails. The informational meetings on the proposed management are based on an area in Custer, Butte and Lemhi counties. The proposal creates an off road vehicle trail system which connects the cities of Challis, Mackay and Arco by the using the existing routes on BLM and Forest Service lands. There would need to be additional signage, mapping and educational efforts to improve user compliance. Statewide presentations have indicated many people are concerned about designating routes as the closing off of public access on some lesser used routes. He noted there are some people who are adamantly opposed to off road vehicles or mechanized use of public lands whatsoever. Senator Stennett facilitated the meeting and was of assistance at the meeting. The comments and general sentiment from the public were that there was a need to for additional management of off road vehicles. He noted there are some disagreement and strong feelings about whose backyard this project should be in. At the conclusion of the hearing, there was a better understanding of the complexity of the issue. He noted the Parks and Recreation Board still support the project. Collignon stated there is to be one more meeting in Pocatello around the first of April. He anticipates at the conclusion of the public hearings process, more than 500 people will have participated. There are more than 300 written comments on the project. The Department of Parks and Recreation will move forward on the project. |
|
H 65 | Chairman Noh welcomed Senator Wilson, replacing Senator Calabretta.
Collignon stated H 65 revises the list of state parks under the jurisdiction Collignon provided to the committee a copy of the proposed amendment Chairman Noh noted Senator Calabretta has expressed concern regarding Collignon stated the issue of whether or not the department has more or Motion by Senator Burtenshaw to send H 65 to the fourteenth order for |
Collignon then informed the committee that the fact sheet listing all of the state parks was submitted to JFAC in conjunction with the proposed budget. The revenue column comprises all revenue sources. The difference between the two is what the general fund supports. The Yankee Fork is an example of a park that has no campground and consists of a visitor center along with a management agreement with the Forest Service. The only revenue source there is from book sales in the visitor center. In parks like Yankee Fork, the department, through the off highway management proposal in Custer, Lemhi and Butte counties, would allocate some of the management costs which could then be supported by dedicated funds. Collignon noted the situation in state parks is that some parks are purely |
|
There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. |
DATE: | March 24, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
MEMBERS
EXCUSED: |
Senate Williams absent. |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:40 p.m. | |
H 273 | Mark Benson, Director, Public Affairs, Potlatch Corporation, Lewiston, explained H 273 is legislation regarding recreational trespass and to provide limitation of liability of landowners for land subject to a conservation easement to any governmental entity or nonprofit organization. He noted the legislation extends the liability protections to a private landowner who conveys public access through a conservation easement. Currently, if the lands are open to public access there is a protection from public liability from someone using the lands. If there is a charge to use the lands, the liability protection does not apply. He noted the current law does not address conservation easement. Potlatch, through a conservation easement, intends to grant public access and seeks the same liability protections where there is no charge to the public. He noted the original intent of the law was to allow private landowners to open their property for public access. The legislation continues that intent. One of the values of Potlatch lands to the state is the use by the citizens. He noted even though Potlatch will receive a value for the conservation easement, the public would have access as opposed to the access being reserved to a private entity. Chairman Noh noted Lynn Tominaga of Idaho Ground Water Motion by Senator Little to send H 273 to the floor with a do pass Benson presented a slide presentation to the Committee explaining the He stated the economic resources derived from the land which has been Potlatch certified their lands through the International Organization Potlatch is moving toward conservation easement because much of the Potlatch contemplates granting their conservation easements to the state of Benson then introduced Dennis Murphy from Potlatch, who assisted in |
Winston Wiggins, Director, Department of Lands, stated this project is a new program for the department. Idaho was one of the first states given the opportunity to enroll in the program. Through a series of public hearings throughout the state, the citizens did not support the program at that time. The program has changed and when Potlatch approached the state a year ago, the program was again reviewed and assessed. The Department of Lands already administers a significant number of federal cost-share programs through the Forest Service. He noted the Forest Stewardship program is delivered through the assistance of the Forest Stewardship committee. He noted the committee comprises interested parties that assist and advises the Department of Lands on forest stewardship issues. There are representatives of counties, universities, federal and state agencies, private land owners, tribes, conservation groups and the Trust for Public Lands. The group has been operating in Idaho for approximately twelve years. The established program is administered by the department. He noted he has signed criteria for the program. They are now accepting applications for federal fiscal year 2005. He stated the department will contract the appraisals to assure that they are equitable. Senator Little inquired if there had been any official affirmative action by Ruth Wooding, Lands Forester, U.S. Forest Service, Sawtooth National Upon inquiry, Wooding stated in the first conservation easements, the Upon inquiry from Senator Stennett, Wooding stated Custer County has Will Whalen, Director of Government Relations in Idaho for The Nature Upon inquiry from the committee, Whalen stated the Internal Revenue David Genter, Director for the Northern Rockies Region of the Trust of |
|
Senator Kennedy inquired as to the status of a hearing on the WestRock/Tamarck project because he has concerns he would like to have addressed. Additionally, he would like some reassurance that the Department of Lands has satisfactorily evaluated and protected the state from liability and can satisfactorily perform obligations under the lease agreement. Senator Cameron stated he was concerned about the disclosure of financial Senator Little stated it is the not Legislature’s responsibility to guarantee |
|
There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m. |
DATE: | March 26, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Gold Room |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:35 p.m.
Chairman Noh stated the meeting was an informational session with well-qualified water attorneys in connection with H 284 and the application of |
|
Norm Semanko, Idaho Water Users Association, stated the law has been in place for more than twenty-five years and case law has developed over time. He provided handouts to the Committee (copies are attached). The local public interest criteria were added to the water code in 1978, and, thus expanded the scope of inquiry by the Department of Water Resources for new water right or transfer of a water right. Originally the only consideration was whether the proposed change in use would injure another water right. In addition, in the 1970’s there was a growing concern for the wider impacts on the water resources, such as recreation, fishing, and aesthetic values. Those requirements and others resulted in the addition of the local public interest criteria. Additional concerns at that time were the potential impacts of water being transferred out of state and transferring water between hydrologic basins. The local public interest concept in regard to the proposed use by all water users, not just those with water rights, has been in the water code for twenty-five years. In the 1985 Supreme Court case of Shokal v. Dunn, the issue was whether water quality had to be considered by the Department of Water Resources when considering an application. At that time the definition of local public interest was interpreted to mean the area that was directly impacted. He noted the Supreme Court ruled that local public interest does include water quality. The Supreme Court further ruled the Department of Health and Welfare, now the Department of Environment Quality, had the responsibility to regulate water quality. The Department of Water Resources, in connection with the local public interest criteria, could not grant an application which would violate water quality standards. The Supreme Court further stated that it was appropriate for the Department of Water Resources to condition the water right on obtaining the relevant permits from DEQ for water quality. He noted this has worked well for some time. In the past couple of years there has been a change in case law. The district court in Twin Falls recently held that local public interest can mean any locally important factor even without direct reference to the use of water. If the director of DWR has jurisdiction over any local public interest factor, then the director has jurisdiction over everything that the DWR has traditionally reviewed along with considerations by the county, DEQ, and the highway district. He stated this factor has become a very serious problem. The case bringing these factors to attention was the K&W Dairy case in which local public interest issues were raised by the protestant included ground water issues, as well as potential odor problems. After the hearing by DWR, the department approved the application with the condition that in place of a flushing manure management system the applicant install a mechanical scraping system for removing dairy waste in order to reduce odors. When DWR’s decision was reviewed by the district court, the court held that DWR should have determined what an acceptable level of odors is and then measured the proposed dairy against the standard. He stated this is something to be handled by the Department of Agriculture or DEQ. The district court ruled that because DWR has broad jurisdictional grounds because of the local public interest criteria, DWR cannot satisfy the criteria by requiring applicant to comply with DA or DEQ. The district court ruled that DWR cannot sidestep the statutory standard at the transfer or application stage and pass to another agency for regulation. Now, there is a decision by a court that all of the factors presented in regard to the local public interest must be fully considered by DWR, regardless of whether another agency has complete and full jurisdiction in that area. Semanko noted another case is the Rocky Mountain Land & Cattle Additionally, Semanko informed the Committee the legislation does not |
|
Scott Reed, Coeur d’Alene attorney, representing Idaho Conservation League, stated he was appointed twenty-three years ago by Governor Evans to represent the environmental interests on the Idaho Water Resource Board. He stated Reed Hansen and he, the only remaining members of the 1976 Idaho Water Resource Board, published a guest opinion in the Idaho Statesman recently. The article provided a history of the establishment of public interest as the number one policy in the state water plan. The public interest, modified by the Legislature, added “local” to the terminology. This was adopted in 1978 and has become part of the regulations for required consideration in approving water right applications and water transfers by DWR. The intent and effect of H 284 if adopted would destroy local public interest as intended in the state water plan. He stated if H 284 is adopted other areas would be affected through defining local public interest as the interest of people in the area directly affected by water use and the effects of such use on the public water resource. H 284 does not take away the direction to consider whether there is enough water. Reed noted a recent dispute in north Idaho regarding two power companies to withdraw seven to 10 million gallons per day from the Rathdrum aquifer. The applications were originally recommended for denial by the hearing officer as a violation of Idaho Code Section 42-203a6 without considering other criteria which included public interest. At the hearing the scope of the testimony offered and received by the hearing officer was far broader than water availability and was definitely within the scope of public interest. The applications were opposed by a broad variety of public interest groups: two labor organizations, four environmental groups, several chambers of commerce, a number of businesses, grass seed farmer, and some other individuals. The hearings were attended by between 80 to 100 people. The expert witnesses presented by the opponents include two hydrologists, energy interest authority, a marketing professor from Gonzaga, a climate scientist from the University of Washington, and a fishery biologist from Washington Fish and Game Department. If H 284 had been in effect at that time, most of the experts would have been barred from testifying along with a major portion of the citizens. He noted because of local interest, the hearing was lengthy because a multimillion dollar investment versus the long-term future use of water in the Coeur d’Alene and Spokane area is dependent was the issue. One of the beneficial outcomes of the controversy was a determination by DWR in response to petitions for the creation of a Rathdrum Prairie Ground Water Management Area. Another beneficial outcome was the action by the Idaho congressional delegation to secure funding for a study of the aquifer. Local public interest should be defined as the affairs of the people in the area directly effected by the proposed use. Reed noted H 284 substitutes water quantity for people and defines water as the public. He further stated the proposed amendments to the code is redundant to what is already stated in three ways. He noted H 284 forbids the establishment of minimum stream flow rights under the local public interest criteria. He stated the legislation is complicated and difficult to read and understand. He stated, with H 284 a minimum flow can only be established pursuant to chapter 15, title 42; however, section 42-1501 sets forth as the purpose of the minimum flow is to preserve water in the public interest and describes stream flows as required for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat, aquatic life, recreation, aesthetic beauty, transportation, navigation, and water quality. Reed stated after reviewing the minimum flow language he believes it is intended to attack a portion of Shokal v. Dunn which defined public interest. The mandatory deference to other regulatory agencies has the effect of eliminating the public from participation. He noted the Legislature last session gave the Department of Environment Quality regulatory authority over swine and poultry feed operations, but the public has no voice in rule adoption or in any enforcement action. There is no general air quality law in Idaho and no opportunity for the public to voice support or objection to anything that may affect air quality in a hearing. He stated DEQ has rule making authority and enforcement authority, but the public is not a participant in DEQ proceedings relating to air or water quality. Water right application hearings produce significant public interest and concerns have been few. He noted the cost savings to the department from elimination of general public involvement would be relatively insignificant as compared to the cost of hearings in contested water right applications. The costs could be compared to the annual appropriation for the Snake River Basin Adjudication. Idaho citizens care deeply about water. He noted if conflicts occur between meeting new water uses, the approval or denial of the application shall consider the public interest including an evaluation of the beneficial and adverse economic, environmental and social impacts are set forth in the adopted original state water plan. He stated what the next use of water will be is an unknown. He noted the public cared before and cares a lot more now. The present laws work and the proposed legislation will eliminate the public. Really local public interest is meaningful and understandable. He urged the committee to oppose the legislation. |
|
Rich Carlson, Filer attorney, stated he was appearing in behalf of the farmers, ranchers and rural residents who are members of the Idaho Rural Council. He provided a handout to the committee (a copy is attached) which provides summary information on some of the cases connected with the local public interest issue. He stated the cases have significant public interest elements which will provide evidence that there has not been an abuse of the public interest doctrine. The Idaho Rural Council and the public expect government to work for them. He stated they never anticipated that a government agency would be issuing a permit for an operation which would be a public nuisance. The public is now very cynical about any agency of government that tells the public “that’s not our problem.” When a permit is being issued for an operation or development with a serious potential to affect water quality or quality of life, the public expects to be protected. He stated the serious degradation of air quality is a serious impact, as is the loss of water. Until all government agencies responsible for public welfare can prove that they can do the job, no agency, including the Department of Water Resources, should overlook potential problems that might occur. He quoted Shokal v. Dunn stating, “It is not the primary job of water resources to protect the health and welfare of Idaho citizens and visitors. That role is best in the Department of Health and Welfare, including compliance with water quality regulations and monitoring effluent discharge into the state’s waterways . . . although these agencies have separate functions, water resources are precluded from issuing a permit for a water appropriation project which when completed would violate the water quality standards of the Department of Health and Welfare.” Carlson noted when large CAFO (confined animal feed operations) operators can point to a single operation of comparable scale located near a populated area which does not create some type of nuisance condition, Idaho Rural Council will reconsider the concept and philosophy behind H 284. The public interest portion of water law needs to be flexible to deal with every type of threat to air and water quality, along with property values and way of life. The public interest requirements need to be flexible. The current law acts as a check and balance system. He stated H 284 is a solution looking for a problem. He noted the case he has cited was not an abuse of the law. He further summarized the cases set out in his handout (a copy is He stated the Salmon Falls Land and Livestock operation was recently The Bloxham Diary at Hagerman, west of the National Monument, would The Eagle View Dairy near Castleford would have had an impact on the Rocky Mountain Land and Cattle at King Hill were denied a permit by Carlson stated the Idaho Rural Council has supported protests in transfers, |
|
Phil Rassier, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Water Resources, stated he was involved in the Shokal v. Dunn in connection with a large fish operation on Billingsley Creek at Hagerman. The citizens along Billingsley Creek protested because they were concerned about water quality issues. At that time, the DWR had never considered local public interest or water quality. The department’s order was conditioned on the local public interest statutes to allow the protestants thirty days to petition the director to consider the local public interest. The applicant felt it was unfair to have the new requirement applied to his existing proceeding. This case was appealed to the Supreme Court which ruled an applicant for a water right is not holding a property interest to be protected by the retroactive application. The local public interest criteria were then applied to all pending applications before the department. Rassier stated the Shokal case centered on the extent the local public Rassier stated that the applicant presents testimony or evidence describing |
|
Clive Strong, Deputy Attorney General, Chief of the Division of Natural Resources, stated the discussion has fairly presented the issues to the Committee. This is fundamentally a public policy question between the citizens of the state and the Legislature about the appropriate mechanism for allocating an essential resource. Fundamentally, there are two questions which need to be asked. First, how to take into account the various environmental factors that can influence the use of the resources. Secondly, if those factors are taken into consideration, what is the appropriate forum for consideration of the various issues. Strong stated his role is to try and capture the intent and objective of the sponsors of the proposed legislation. The citizens of Idaho believe and support the need for consideration of the impact of use of the waters of Idaho as it affects the public interest along with preserving the Shokal v. Dunn aspect of the local public interest while taking into account all the direct effects of the water use. Strong stated the intent was to retain considerations of water quality and water quantity in the issue of allocation of water so the fundamental aspects of water use are reflected in the definition. He stated the policy question before the Committee concerns the secondary effects of a particular use. He noted the statement of purpose for the proposed legislation sets out an example of various impacts for a proposed project. He further noted the example could have no impact on water but would upon secondary impacts in regard to air quality. He stated the sponsors were concerned about making sure that issue is debated before the appropriate state entity. The issue would not be ignored but it would be handled by a state agency having jurisdiction over the matter. The proposed legislation addresses what is the appropriate forum for the different environmental concerns. The proposed legislation does not do away with the local public interest. The local public interest is maintained but sets limits around how to address the local public interest in respect to DWR. Other issues would then be addressed by other regulatory entities. |
|
Upon inquiry, Reed related his one of his experiences in North Idaho regarding a Wal-Mart wherein a public witness attempted to testify regarding the company’s labor practices but was prohibited from testifying by the hearing officer because the issue was zoning. Reed stated that is an example of what ought to be properly and procedurally presented. The public witness should be required to talk only about the main issue. Reed further stated it was important to keep in mind and not take the language added as adding something. He said the local public interest as defined are the affairs of the people in the area directly affected by the proposed use would prohibit forever any effort to divert water out of the basin or take away water that is going to affect the local economy. Reed stated the economic interest can be considered and should be a primary consideration. Reed stated the new language is limited to the transbasin diversions and they do not happen often. Senator Stennett stated the proponents state the reason for the proposed |
|
Upon inquiry from Senator Kennedy, Semanko stated H 284 would codify court holdings about water quality. The Shokal decision caused discussion about whether the local public interest criteria should be removed from the statute. Ths Shokal decision is not the reason for H 284. Semanko stated the interests set forth in the Shokal decision are still protected under H 284. He noted the statement of purpose for H 284 also clarifies the protection of those interests by the director under local public interest criteria in the consideration of water rights. |
|
Chairman Noh stated protestants will continue to try to build logical connections between water use and other factors. Noh inquired if a flush system in a dairy which relies directly upon using the water. The use of a flush system leads to bad odors. Under H 284, Semanko stated what should be considered is the impact on the public water resource and not water supply. Semanko further stated the impacts on the water could also be a water quality impact, quantity impact or other uses of water, not the water supply. |
|
Carlson stated the public water resource if used through a flush system or through the pivots which could create nuisance conditions and would have a direct connection with the water resource. Part of his objection to H 284 is because if other agencies are not doing what they should be to protect the citizens, why should another agency permit anything that would have the potential to become a public nuisance. DWR would then be just another agency processing applications without listening to citizens. Carlson stated until the large CAFOs can show to the citizens that their operations will not be a public nuisance in populated areas, why should any governmental agency be involved and participate in approving it. Carlson further stated under the current law the applicant has the burden of |
|
Semanko noted in Idaho their ability to show financial resources is required for a project so that part of the public interest criteria is covered under existing statutory criteria. Upon inquiry from Senator Stennett, Semanko stated there has been some in their group and other groups who would like to say that it has been a fun experiment, but the prevailing attitude is the local public interest is ingrained in the water code until the decision by the Fifth District Court. He noted the definition needs to be preserved and given specific definition that is workable. |
|
Upon inquiry from Chairman Noh, Semanko stated the issue of traffic has been addressed by DWR in recent cases. He noted there is also concern for the potential impacts that industry could have on an area and those concerns being raised under the local public interest in a water right proceeding. Semanko stated the core reason for the legislation is that DWR cannot do some of its core programs. DWR is now at the point of not being able to do planning, which is required under the statutes. The SRBA is the next thing to be considered by DWR. He stated DWR is having a third hearing on what the appropriate odor standard is when the Department of Agriculture is the agency that should be do and when the county should be making decisions on whether the dairy should be there. DWR will not solve the odor problem issue in the Magic Valley, but they are being held hostage until the other agencies address the issue. DWR is being diverted from its mission because of these jurisdictional issues that other entities are or should be addressing. Semanko stated that is the core concern of the Idaho Water Users Association. |
|
Rassier stated the hearing officer assigned to the cases is the individual primarily impacted by a second or third hearing. The hearing officer does not work on the SRBA so there is no effect on the adjudication. |
|
Semanko stated when the director of DWR spends multiple days and weeks trying to response to the K&W Dairy decision on whether there is an appropriate odor standard or not, there is an impact on DWR proceedings. The director also needs to spend time on issues related to ESA, flow augmentation, conjunctive management, and other issues. Other agencies have jurisdiction over the issues and the director of DWR should not be forced to consider those issues. |
|
Time having expired; the meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. |
DATE: | March 28, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:45 p.m.
Chairman Noh brought to the Committee’s attention the memorandum of Chairman Noh also noted the need to discuss the possibility of a trust Chairman Noh provided to the Committee a proposed draft of a letter of LEGISLATIVE INTENT In approving H 83, the Idaho Senate is only authorizing a long-term ______________________________________ Laird Noh, Chairman Senate Resources and Environment Committee Legislative Intent H 83 Ken McClure, Boise attorney representing WestRock/Tamarack, stated Boespflug stated there has been an extensive process over the past six Committee a letter he had prepared to assure the Committee of their intent |
|
He noted there was concern from some members of the Committee that the He noted all outstanding offerings for securities now contain the Boespflug further stated the concern that Bank of America is no longer He informed the committee that phase one of the project includes two ski Boespflug pledged to the committee that any funds received for Typically the project’s outreach program will make donations between Boespflug stated his conviction and funding of the resort project is strong |
|
H 83 | Winston Wiggins, Director, Department of Lands, responding to questions from the Committee, stated there are adequate assurances in the document to provide for the commitments that are required by the state endowment land lease. He noted the lease provides for bonding or other financial considerations. The financial assurances set forth in page 29 of the lease requires either cash on hand committed to the payment of construction or financing for such construction in a form acceptable to the department. The determination of which alternative is at the option of the lessee, but the department controls by requiring the form and the institutions that are satisfactory to the state. |
Kent Nelson, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Lands, responded to inquiries that the lease documents were stated in generalizations to enable the department to have some flexibility. He noted a standard construction escrow account has been outlined to the developers which will be with a bank or title company, which will be a third-party holder of the funds. Funds will not be disbursed unless there is an approval of disbursement by all the parties, including the Land Board. |
|
Senator Kennedy stated to the Committee that after the last committee meeting and in view of Senator Cameron’s statements that he was somewhat concerned that the letter to the Governor was not one hundred percent representative of the members, he wanted to emphasize several of the items in the letter were from him. Kennedy meet personally with Wiggins and McClure to convey his concerns as a member of the committee. He noted all the items he was concerned about were contained in the chairman’s letter to the Governor. He stated there are four basic concerns that he had which have been commented on by Boespflug today. Kennedy stated the state has an obligation to make sure the rental payments under the lease are protected and are a good return to the state endowment lands. He further stated he believes the committee has an obligation to ascertain that the project has reasonable likelihood of success. Upon inquiry from Senator Kennedy, Wiggins stated the department or Senator Kennedy stated it would be unwise for the Legislature to provide Upon further inquiry from Senator Kennedy, Wiggins stated the letter Nelson said the concerns of the committee are valid and commends the Kennedy stated he was concerned that the public would perceive that the Upon inquiry from Senator Stennett, Nelson said the summary would |
|
Ken McClure, Boise attorney, representing WestRock/Tamarack, stated if the committee needs further assurance, the developer will agree to it but that would not be as good as placing a disclaimer in the sales agreement. If this is a material issue to the committee, the developer has no objection. Chairman Noh inquired as to the intention of the Department of Lands and Senator Burtenshaw inquired as to the responsibility for fencing the cattle |
|
Scott Turlington, Office of the Governor, stated outside the Governor’s role as Chairman of the Land Board, he is mandated to maximize the long term return to the endowment. He noted the lease was drafted through the department with tough negotiations. The Governor has worked with DEQ, Department of Parks and Recreation, Department of Fish and Game, and Department of Transportation to assure the protections were in place. The additional commitments provided by the developers is a good indication of the cooperation throughout the negotiations with the developers. |
|
Motion | Motion by Senator Brandt to send H 83 to the floor with a do pass with legislative intent recommendation; seconded by Senator Williams. Motion carried. |
There being no further matters to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m. |
DATE: | March 31, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Gold Room |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:40 P.M.
Rick Stott, representing Idaho Cattle Association as a member of the |
|
Helen Will stated she was opposed to H 284 but did not wish to testify. | |
Cheryl Kaatz stated her and her husband retired eight years ago from the U.S. Air Force to Buhl-Twin Falls area. They purchased a home seven miles north of Buhl. It was unknown to them that there would be additional inhabitants above them in Gooding County. She stated she does not have a science degree, but she trusts her nose for the detection of smell. Two days ago stepping out on their patio, smell does not know a one-mile limit and neither does water. Water flows down hill and it will flow more than one mile. Even though they are not within the one-mile impact area, they feel they should be able to have their views heard. She urged the committee to listen to the public on these issues. |
|
Dick Rush, Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, stated their organization supports H 284 because state government is organized into departments with specific purposes and responsibilities. In recent years, the director of the Department of Water Resources in the reviewing of applications for use of water has had to base some of DWR decisions on non-water topics as traffic and air quality. He noted there are other state departments which have the responsibilities for those areas. H 284 would cease the jurisdictional drift and would clarify the responsibilities for water issues and the issues under the purview of other state departments. He urged support for the legislation. |
|
Joyce M.. Chase, retired politician, owning acreage in the Dry Lake area of Canyon County, stated they have been in the area since 1902. She stated two years ago they attempted to sell the property to individual for a dairy operation. In order to sell the property, it was necessary for them to assure a well for water. At the present time, the land is irrigated from the Snake River and in order to install a well it is necessary for them to mitigate the water right. They filed to do so in January 2002. In June people who moved into the area protested the application. To date there has not been a final hearing. In the meantime, they have had to hire environmental resource experts and attorneys in this regard. She stated the original protest was not just strictly on water but because it was a dairy and odor. Five of the six criteria had been met by the sellers so the transaction is still in limbo. She noted to date the cost to them has been $36,241.54 and they still don’t have an answer. If it had been strictly on water, they would have known by now whether the transaction could or could not proceeded. Protesting could have taken place at planning and zoning, county commissioners and other areas which are better equipped to deal with the concerns expressed in the protests other than the water. She urged the Committee to consider the legislation as it does not take away anyone’s rights. There is still the right to file protests in other areas. Let the Department of Water Resources deal with water issues. Senator Stennett inquired whether passage of the legislation would effect David Mead, Twin Falls, stated he is a retired banker with experience and |
|
Terry Ottens, representing Canyon County Farm Bureau Federation Board, agrees that water issues should be concerned at the hearings by water experts at DWR. Land use and other issues should be heard in their appropriate forums as already directed by state law. The local land use planning act is very specific in that the locals should be making the decisions on land use and they should not pre-empted by state agencies. They recommend H 284 do pass. |
|
Steve Kaatz, owns a farm seven miles of Buhl Idaho and has a vested interest in the Magic Valley. He noted he served last year as the president of the Buhl Chamber of Commerce and is currently president of the Rural Magic Valley Economic Issues. He stated the frustration in the Magic Valley with the degraded quality of life being experiencing because of the confined animal feed operations. He stated his water has gone from no measurement of nitrates up to six parts per million. The report by the Department of Environmental Quality in August of 2000 forecasted that they would no longer be able to drink their water by 2005. He noted they have spent a great deal of money investing in the property and in their homes. The vast majority of people living in the subdivision are very disappointed and see their land values declining and cannot sell their property close to what they paid for it. This law is twenty years old and ensures public interest in the water, a common economic factor. To eliminate the public interest from water is hard to understand. If there is a complaint about a confined animal feeding operation, the Department of Agriculture should be contacted, but there is not an office in the Magic Valley. He stated they have been unable to obtain a response from the Boise office of the Department of Agriculture to complaints. He stated he does not see a problem with asking an enterprise which provides an economic vitality to an area to come before the public, most affected by the enterprise, to explain when and how much they want to be good neighbors. He opposes the legislation. |
|
Toy Smith, Twin Falls, stated he sees the issue as one between an Idaho industry that is trying to grow and develop versus large out of state enterprises funding citizen groups. He noted there have been some problems with specific instances in the dairy industry, but 98 per cent of the dairies in Idaho have never had an odor complaint against them. The local public interest law is an attempt to make an end run around local planning and zoning, who have the authority to decide who should or should not being doing what within each county. If protestants cannot get what they want through planning and zoning, they then file against the water right transfer. The protestants are not well versed in the issues used to condemn a particular development and the need to protect their own credibility. When a permit is delayed or denied, it is an easy thing to do. He believes passage of the legislation is in the best interests of the state. He encouraged the committee to send the legislation to the floor with a do pass recommendation. Upon inquiry, Smith stated he was an employee of Northwest Dairy |
|
Stacy Butler, Spring Cove Ranch, Bliss, presented to the Committee testimony from the 600 members of the Idaho Rural Council. A copy is attached. She noted she is the Executive Director of the Idaho Rural Council. She presents this testimony in behalf of herself and her family. She stated her and her husband are fifth generation ranchers. She asked the Committee to vote no on H 284. Her family was one of the first to protest a water transfer application from a large dairy in Idaho. In an effort to protect the natural springs, which provides the drinking water for five homes for over 85 years, the family filed a protest. The protest took over three years and cost the family over $70,000 to protect their water. The water transfer was denied by the Department of Water Resources and she was able to prove that the transfer would damage their existing water right under all four of the criteria required by DWR, including the local public interest criteria. After the preliminary order of denial was published by DWR, the applicant withdrew the original application and reapplied for the same water at the same site for the same use. The family was unable to fund another protest battle and therefore entered into an agreement to protect the water quality in the springs. The agreement was been disregarded by the diary men and ten years after the initial water protest was filed there is now civil litigation pending. She stated she is concerned if H 284 becomes law, water transfers previously denied by DWR will reapplied due to the new definition of public interest. This would be costly not only to those who protested the water transfers, it would also be costly to the state through DWR. The water protestants have indicated the law has cost them thousands of dollars by allowing a broad interpretation of the public interest criteria. Butler stated the cost of a water transfer battle are incurred on both sides. The state law in effect benefits the applicant over the protestant. If a water transfer is granted, the protestant must live with the decision or file for judicial review. On the other hand, if the water transfer is denied, the applicant can reapply for the same water at the same site for the same use and drain the financial resources of the protestant. The public interest criteria as written provides citizens an opportunity to participate in the decisions concerning Idaho’s water uses. The interested public should not be limited to speak when water has no boundaries or limits. The irrigation water for the ranch comes from the American Falls Reservoir. The water, while used for irrigation, also provides recreation, water fowl habitat and stock water. She expressed concern how the interests of citizens could be limited in the protection of the resource for the public benefit. Butler further said H 284 will narrowly limit DWR in considering water permits. She asked the committee not to consider the interests of a special interest lobby, but to stand up for the Idaho citizens’ right to participate in the process and to vote no on H 284. |
|
Reagan Hatch, managing partner of Castleford dairy owner, stated as a dairymen, resident of Twin Falls County, and current chairman of the Twin Falls County Planning and Zoning, he is well aware how contentious the dairies are in their area. The process of protesting a water right transfer is dealing with issues that should be handled by the local planning and zoning and county land use issues and has absolutely nothing to do with a water right. He stated their water transfer was one of the first to be protested and he has personal experience with the process. They were required to hire a hydrologist, attorney and expert witnesses to develop one of the first nutrient management plans in the state. The nutrient management plan was one of the good results of the process. Their application was based on science and documented facts pertaining to water use and operational issue concerning the dairy. The protest were not based on fact or science but newspaper articles. He stated they are currently milking 200 cows under their permit and are at capacity. They are currently pumping right at their water right and they do not have the water they will need to add 200 cows for economic purposes. He stated DWR has their own work sheets and the information regarding the water transfer had to be transferred to DWR forms. The calculations determined by DWR was much lower than what was original determined their water rights to be. Because of DWR work sheets, a substantial number of dairies that transferred water during the three year period following their water transfer do not have adequate water to operate at capacity. He noted they do not have a problem with transferring water to cover their usage because there is a well on their farm a mile and one-half west of the dairy and will transfer some of that water to fill their needs. He stated their problem is in applying for the transfer of water, changing the point of diversion and change of use from agriculture to commercial, there will be someone in the Magic Valley, outside of his immediate community, will spend the $25 to file a protest and force a hearing. He stated he was equally sure that his neighbors, nor anyone in their community, would protest the transfer. Water transfer hearings under the local public interest doctrine have become a circus that is being used in the public forum to harass dairy people. He stated DWR should be dealing with water issues, quality and quantity and not other matters outside the scope of DWR. |
|
Upon inquiry from Senator Cameron, Stacy Butler responded her husband is a fifth generation rancher and she is a sixth generation rancher. They have 1,000 deeded acres since the early 1900’s owned and managed by a member of the Butler family. They have a water right for the ranch operations which dates back to 1922 with an additional water transfer made in 1945. She does not know whether there was ever a protest filed in connection with their water rights. |
|
Jeff Brooks, a resident of Idaho with a degree in civil engineering with an environmental emphasis. He suggests to the Committee that any legislation designed to limit review and public participation is by definition poor public policy. It is un-American to limit the public process. His experience has been that many state agencies often are outspent and outgunned by well funded private interests and need to rely on the input of private citizens to bring the issues to attention. Public review and participation are the court of final resort and this basic American value should not be short circuited by private interests. He urged the Committee to vote no on the proposed legislation. |
|
Adrian Boer stated he has been operating dairies in Idaho for over 22 years. His sons and him have never had complaint in the years that they have been in business. He noted in a current venture they have been delayed for three and one-half years under the public interest doctrine in their water transfer. He stated the water transfer should have been just a simply change of use. They have the property with the water. After receiving all the siting permits and other requirements in Gooding County, they have been delayed by the local public interest criteria. They have provided a nutrient management plan, which cost over $13,000, along with $4,300 in attorney fees and engineering fees and compiled with the Gooding County CAFO ordinances as required. The odor management plan passed into law last year is now also required. He stated they understand the proposed legislation would not have an effect on their application. He stated they support and passage of H 284. |
|
Bill Chisholm provided written testimony which is attached to the minutes. He stated the primary role of government is protect the inalienable rights of all the citizens and not to protect special interests. He noted water is not a commodity, but is the common denominator on which all life depends. The public interest should be defined by the public and not by lawyers for special interest groups. The issue before the Committee is not about CAFO but the CAFO issue is certainly a driving force. He noted in local land use planning many of the impacts go across county lines. H 283 does not protect the public and the public does not deal with the inter jurisdictional issues. That legislation does not deal with people outside the one mile or businesses, schools and churches, but addresses primary residences within the one mile. The local public interest as set forth in Shokal v. Dunn is a twenty-five year concept that addresses the secondary issues. If water is to be used for beneficial use, how can something that creates a beneficial use be considered a public nuisance. One of the places for the public to express their concerns is through the public interest aspect of water law. Chisholm stated his opposition to H 284 and H 283. Chisholm presented to the Committee a petition from 136 citizens around the state. |
|
Lauren McLean, Idaho Conservation League, provided a handout to the Committee. (A copy is attached.) She noted there is 179 signatures from Meridian and Moscow opposing H 284 along with editorials from various newspapers. In the Shokal decision states “The public interest should be read broadly in order to secure the greatest possible benefit from the public waters for the public. By using the general term, local public interest, the Legislature intended to include any locally important factor impacted by proposed appropriations.” She stated H 284 restricts citizen participation in public decision making because it would limit the scope of what would be allowed in the discussion under consideration. The proposed legislation would change the body of law which has been thoroughly debated and worked well for twenty-five years. This legislation is not needed because there is not a clear reason why the law is needed and would not solve the problems indicated. She stated H 284 does limit testimony and court consideration of testimony if it is outside the scope of water quality and quantity. She noted H 284 deals with a body of law in existence for twenty-five years. According to DWR, on average it takes nine to 12 months for a protested case to be completed. In southern Idaho since 2000 to January 2003 there were approximately 753 water transfer applications of which 83 were protested with 30 being protested under the local public interest issue. She noted that is only 4 percent of the southern Idaho water transfer applications. H 284 will eliminate people from participating in issues relating to the local public interest. She stated a Deputy Attorney General previously stated that H 284 limits what DWR can consider, limits testimony and limits public input by narrowing the scope. She urged the Committee to hold H 284 in committee. |
|
Brad Hoaglun, representing Food Producers of Idaho, stated the process is broken and H 284 will allow decisions to be made in a timely fashion by DWR. Government should be an orderly process and for a decision to be rendered in a timely fashion. There should be a system in place that follows through. The issue is about water rights, not about dairies. Idaho is an agricultural state and water is integral. DWR is being abused by opponents to dairies by tying up the system. He urged the Committee to send H 284 to the floor with a do pass recommendation. |
|
Senator Kennedy inquired when the local public interest doctrine was broken. Hoaglun responded the doctrine and system is broken when people cannot get a decision by government. He further stated the law did work well for a good portion of time, but when the issues of dairies and the size of dairies and CAFOs became an issue, that is when the doctrine was broken because it was used for purposes outside the scope of DWR. The questions can be and should be addressed through other avenues. |
|
Bobi DeKleinhaus stated she lives on the Snake River near Salmon Falls Creek, flowing through their property as it goes into the Snake River. Water right, land use, the pollution involved and the amount of water taken are important issues to her. She urged to the Committee to vote no on H 284 as she does not think it is needed at this time. She thinks a good job is being done right now and urges that public not be removed from public interest. |
|
Del Kohtz, own and operate Idaho Water Company at Eden, Idaho, stated his company deals in water rights and transfers for milk processing, dairy and farm clients in southern Idaho. He is familiar with what it takes to transfer a water right to a business needing water. He noted he is also a member of the Jerome County Planning and Zoning Commission and in that capacity he has seen businesses make an effort to try and get the necessary permits and comply with county land use ordinances. He believes the commissions of the various counties should have the final say on whether a business should be sited in a particular place. Too many times, those in opposition to a particular business oppose the siting at commission hearings and then if the commission finds for the applicant, the opposition then moves to water rights transfer protest to further stall the process of getting the required permits to run the business. Not many business can wait two years for the necessary permits to begin business. He stated the local public interest provision should not be a part of Idaho water law because the provision shifts the responsibility for land use decisions from the local commission to DWR. DWR does not have the expertise, personnel or funding to properly make a decision on matters of property rights. He supports and urges the committee to send H 284 to the floor with a do pass recommendation. Upon inquiry from Chairman Noh whether Kohtz agreed with the |
|
Jim DeKleinhaus, retired professional engineer, living north of Buhl, stated his opposition to H 284. The change in Idaho water law removes the safety net to protect onerous developments, regardless of what type they are, as now enjoyed by all the citizens to the benefit of a few. He stated the legislation is unneeded and urged the Committee to hold in the Committee and proceed with more important business of the Senate. |
|
Roger Ling, attorney, Rupert, stated he is a native of Idaho and has been involved in water law issues during his 39 years as an attorney. He appears before the Committee representing the Idaho Water Users Association and himself. Local public interest under Shokal v. Dunn resolves only water issues. He stated the wheel was broken when the local public interest criteria was considered in water issues which can properly be addressed by the existing statutes and not solely by the Department of Water Resources. When the siting is approved by local planning and zoning commission, as well as city or county commissioners, and could have been appealed in the courts. Siting and odor are issues to be addressed by other agencies other than DWR. He asked why an agency of the state without expertise in issues outside of water should be required to make decisions on issues not related to water. He stated you do not have to have water to have an odor, or dust or traffic. Water quality problems can be created without any water being on the premises. He asked that the Committee stop and consider the issue in the proper perspective. The issues should be further challenged in the appropriate agencies, commissions and departments and not with DWR. Upon from Senator Cameron whether the legislation would cause an effect Upon inquiry from Senator Kennedy, Ling stated the discussion in Shokal |
|
Valerie Chisholm, Buhl, educator, stated as an educator she must be held accountable and responsible to her community. The large industrial agricultural interests are furthering their interest through the proposed legislation by removing the local public interest. She stated the new criteria would enable agricultural interests to be less accountable. The scientific effects of ground water show how they all interact and they should be reviewed together, not separately. She stated the legislation addresses only 4 percent of the cases over the past two years and the Legislature should be spending its time on more significant and important issues such as obtaining more funding for education. She noted nutrient management plans are not enforced; departments and agencies are limited and the Department of Agriculture does not answer telephone calls. She noted that citizens are frustrated and do not need the legislation. She |
|
` | Bill Ringert, attorney and grape grower at Hammett, representing Idaho Water Users Association and himself, stated he is a native of Idaho and his grandparents and parents were farmers. He still owns a farm in the Castleford area and has been involved in water law for over forty years. He noted the local public interest criteria has been a problem since it was enacted because it imposes vague requirements. He further stated the law on local public interest is ambigious. The proposed legislation retains a good portion of the ambiguity. He supports the legislation as it will be a good attempt to limit the impact on the water right issues and not hold every water right hostage. He stated DWR, with their limited resources, is doing a good job, but expertise is limited and they should not be the “one stop shop.” If the Legislature wants, it could create an agency which would encompass the whole scope of issues, but this would take decisions out of the local public interest. He urged the Committee to send H 284 to the floor with a do pass recommendation. |
Ripkin Hilton stated she was born and raised in Idaho and is representing herself. She requested the Committee to vote no on the legislation. |
|
Dan Shoemaker, Kimberly, has a farming and ranching operation and represents himself and as President of the Idaho Water Users Association. He stated the association and he supports H 284. The local public interest criteria are considered in all water right proceedings. The proposed legislation would not change these criteria, but under H 284 DWR would be required to consider impacts to the public water resources. Other local and state agencies, as well as counties, should consider air quality and traffic. The Department of Water Resources should not make decisions regarding secondary impacts. The local public interest criteria are important for the department to consider in making water right decisions. He stated DWR is being distracted from doing it job as required by the statutes. The department should not be bogged down in local public interest issues that should be addressed by other state and county agencies having jurisdiction. He further noted the legislation would clarify that minimum stream flows would not be required to be considered under the local public interest criteria. The existing process for minimum stream flow water right must be followed. He noted that those concerned about water issues are being outspent and outgunned by out of state interests. Shoemaker thanked Representative Stevenson and Senator Noh for their time and effort into the drafting of the legislation. He stated H 284 is good legislation and urged the Committee’s support. |
|
Upon inquiry from Chairman Noh, Shoemaker stated he is not representing the Twin Falls Canal Company, whose position is neutral on the legislation. |
|
Fred Brossey, Lincoln County farmer along the Little Wood River, stated he disagrees with H 284. He stated that although the legislation should be about water, does not seem to be about water, but about economics. To change the definition of local public interests states the change will not adversely affect the local economy of the watershed. Water is the life blood of Idaho. Idaho’s water belongs to all its citizens and those with a water right have a right to put the water to beneficial use. The use of water affects much more than just local economies. It also affects ecological health of the region. Water has more than just economic value. The current definition for local public interest in Idaho Code is the only opportunity for those who care about environmental values, beyond economic impacts, have to protect those values. He further stated H 284 is short sighted for the best interests of the state. Idaho’s water in the Snake River Basin is fully appropriated. He urged the Committee to not pass H 284. Upon inquiry from Senator Cameron, Brossey stated he grows alfalfa, potatoes, dry beans, wheat, pasture, sweet corn, seed corps, asparagus and cattle. He stated in a past life he did use pesticides and burn fields, but he no longer does. He further stated his water right dates back to 1910. |
|
Russ Hendricks speaking in behalf of Greg Nelson for the Farm Bureau stated the members fully support H 284 because it returns the local public interest doctrine to the original intent. The members believe that all issues not directly tied to water should more properly be handled by local and other state entities. He urged the Committee to send H 284 to the floor with a do pass recommendation. |
|
Joanna Weber stated she was representing Citizens for Responsible Land Use, which is a broad-based organization of 300 members in Canyon and Ada County. She noted the group was organized two years ago to oppose a power plant by IdaCorp. She stated the organization is in strong opposition to the legislation because they know first hand how difficult it is for the public voice to be heard. It is a necessary and fundamental element to retain local public interest criteria for major decisions that affect the quality of life. She stated it is critical that people remain part of the process. She urged H 284 be rejected by the Committee. |
|
Jim Stewart, Canyon county dairymen and Board of United Dairy, has a family dairy farm milking 800 cows. He noted they are life long residents of Idaho and the family is involved in community and industry. He noted the family received the Governor’s Environmental Stewardship award. He noted the past ten years the dairy industry has made significant strides to process milk and make cheese. Expansion has a positive and negative impact on Idaho based on individual operations. He provided a handout to the Committee which is attached. He supports H 284. |
|
Bill Sedivy representing Idaho Rivers United stated their opposition to H 284. He stated the legislation would make it more difficult for public participation in the process. The local public interest criteria are needed to protect against the public from negative changes. He noted DWR should consider all factors as water is a public resource and it is appropriate to restrict its use and not restrict the public from participation. |
|
Marc Brackett, Twin Falls County, stated he is a property owner and a tax payer so anything the Legislature does is of interest to him. He noted he also has a water right and considers it a property right. The expansion of the local public interest criteria in relation to water issues restricts the use of that property. There are other legitimate avenues to protest. He noted DWR should not be responsible for dairy siting and local issues. He supports H 284 and urges the Committee to send the legislation to the floor with a do pass recommendation. |
|
Ken McClure, Boise attorney, representing Milk Producers of Idaho, stated the issue is not about CAFOs or agriculture. He related one of his client’s experiences in Valley County where more than 100 hearings were conducted to accommodate local public interests prior to a hearing by the Idaho Land Board in regard to a lease of state lands. The Land Board determined the lease was not only in the public interest, but in the best interests of the state of Idaho and the endowment funds. Following those hearings, application was made for a water right because there was concern that there would not be sufficient water available for the project. A deep well resulted in the discovery of an unknown aquifer with sufficient water which would prevent any harm to existing water rights. He noted there was a six day hearing process for the application for a water right through the Department of Water Resources. The issue was not whether any other user of the aquifer would be harmed because there were no other users or water quality concerns. The protestants had conceded at that point that there were no issues associated with water, but there was a six-day hearing on other issues. McClure stated the procedure is not healthy for the Idaho economy. He urged the Committee to let DWR and the local planning and zoning entities do their respective jobs. |
|
Rick Pearson, Magic Valley Farms, stated his support of H 284. The restrictions by the broad definition of the local public interest are placing issues outside the jurisdictions of DWR. |
|
Brent Olmstead, Executive Director, Milk Producers of Idaho, stated their support for H 284 and let local issues be dealt with on the local level. |
|
Jeff Martin, ground water irrigator, representing the North Snake Ground Water District, presented to the Committee signed petitions. Upon inquiry from Chairman Noh, Martin said the petitions are the same as the ones he submitted in the House and he understands the language in the legislation has since changed. The 130 signatures were gathered around February 10 when Mr. Boer was concerned that the legislation would not apply to him and the petitions were then circulated. Martin stated their support for H 284 and the concepts presented in the legislation . Chairman Noh inquired if at the time the petitions were circulated there was a concern that Mr. Boer’s water permit was not covered, thus the mitigation plans on conjunctive management would not be successful. Martin stated that wasn’t exactly correct. |
|
Mike Quesnel, Twin Falls dairyman, support H 284 and appreciates the local public interest criteria, but the criteria should be the responsibility of the various local entities. He noted it was important for water transfer applications to be handled in a short period of time without unnecessary delay. |
|
Claudia Haines opposes H 284 because of her experiences in Canyon County with errors in siting. She urged the Committee to oppose H 284. |
|
There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 P.M. |
DATE: | April 2, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:40 p.m. | |
H 44 | Jay Biladeau, Department of Lands, informed the Committee the legislation addresses the definition of the lease year. The lease year is from January 1 to December 31 and leases expiring on December 31 of the year of expiration. The restriction applies to all leases except for geothermal, oil, gas or mineral. The legislation would also exempt commercial leases. The last few years the State Board of Land Commissioners has acquired commercial buildings in the capital mall area for office and retail uses. The lease terms for those types of uses usually runs from one to three years and now all of them expire on December 31 for negotiations. He noted December 31 is the slowest time of the year for getting new tenants or moving tenants. The Division of Financial Management has requested the lease period for state entities occupying endowment owned facilities be based on the state fiscal year rather than the calendar year. |
Motion | Motion by Senator Little to send H 44 to the floor with a do pass recommendation; seconded by Senator Schroeder. Motion carried. |
H 284 | Chairman Noh welcomed Chairman Stevenson in attendance. |
Clive Strong, Deputy Attorney General, Chief, Division of Natural Resources, stated the effects of H 284 on the local public interest body of law are set forth and compared in the handout. (A copy is attached.) He noted it was important to review the issue and the intent of the sponsors. The office of Attorney General does not have a position on the proposed legislation. The intent encompassed reviewing and preserving the original definition of local public interest and as set forth in Shokal v. Dunn. The local public interest is defined as the affairs of the people in the area directly affected by the proposed use. That language has remained unchanged since it was originally enacted. He noted it was important to keep in mind that there are two aspects of a legal decision. There are the general discussions of the case, but the critical aspect and interpretation of the case are the holding effects that bind the parties. The courts sometimes make other statements that are not necessary to the decision and they are referred to as dicta. That dicta language is often being used by attorneys to try and predict what the outcome will be by a future court, but it is not the controlling part of the decision. The court in the future can ignore dicta but is required to follow the holding in the case. He noted this is a critical aspect of considering and comparing H 284 with Shokal. Under the interpretation of the statute, the court in Shokal placed the burden of production of evidence upon the party that has knowledge of the issues before the court. In terms of an application for a water right, an applicant has submitted a project to DWR for review and approval of the application for a water right. The applicant has the burden to show what effect the proposed use would have on the local public interest. If the application is protested because the intended use would adversely affect the protestant, the protestant has the initial burden to set forth the evidence. The next level concerns the burden of proof and who has the responsibility to provide the evidence in order to prevail on the issue. Under Shokal the burden of proof is on the applicant. The applicant must overcome any allegations about the impact on the local public interest presented by the protestant. Those provisions would not be changed by the proposed legislation, H 284. Strong noted the real issue in the legislation is the discretion of the director Upon inquiry from Senator Cameron, Strong stated the language is not Upon inquiry from Senator Kennedy, Strong stated it was important in Upon further inquiry, Strong stated that under Shokal an appropriation Strong noted an important issue, such as a dairy lagoon discharge, will Upon further inquiry, Strong stated there is language in the legislation Upon further inquiry, Strong stated there would be side boards on the Chairman Noh informed the Committee of a recent report wherein the City Upon inquiry from Senator Stennett, Strong stated he believed there were Upon inquiry from Senator Cameron, Strong explained the permitting Senator Stennett noted that all the county needs is an application for a |
|
Motion | Motion by Senator Little to send H 284 to the floor with a do pass recommendation; seconded by Senator Brandt. |
Substitute Motion |
Substitute motion by Senator Kennedy to hold H 284 in committee; seconded by Senator Stennett. |
Roll call vote on substitute motion: |
Ayes: Kennedy, Schroeder and Stennett
Nays: Brandt, Cameron, Little, Pearce, Burtenshaw, Williams and Noh Substitute motion failed. |
Roll call vote on original motion: |
Ayes: Brandt, Cameron, Little, Pearce, Burtenshaw, Williams and Noh
Nays: Kennedy, Schroeder and Stennett Motion carried. |
There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m. |
DATE: | April 7, 2003 |
TIME: | 2:00 P.M. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
Senator Pearce absent. |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 2:05 p.m.
Representative Bert Stevenson thanked Chairman Noh for his efforts in |
|
H 294 | Representative Bert Stevenson explained H 294 as legislation to enable the transition from federal management to state management regarding wolf conservation and management. He noted the issue of wolf reintroduction in the Legislature began in 1987 by prohibiting the Department of Fish and Game from participation in the program or management. He reminded the Committee that during the Legislature’s organizational session, this year, information was presented that now was the time to allow the Department of Fish and Game to participate in the management process. The Office of Species Conservation would remain as the lead state |
Chairman Noh welcomed Representative David Langhorst. | |
Greg Schildwachter, Office of Species Conservation, stated the Governor appreciates the strong message the Legislature has sent on the issue because it coincides with the Governor’s message to the Bush administration in regard to needed changes in federal policy. The Governor’s overall strategy for managing wolves in the state is based on some critical changes in federal policy. The Governor has written a letter to the Secretary of the Interior. A copy of the response of March 21, 2003, from Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton in which she concurs in amending the rule governing management of Idaho’s nonessential experimental population of gray wolves is attached. Until delisting is finalized, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Tribes will manage wolves according to our state plan. He noted the proposed legislation clarifies the operation of management within the state. He noted the detail handout he has provided to the Committee; a copy is attached. He called the Committee’s attention to the estimated time line on page 11 of his handout. |
|
Steve Huffaker, Director, Department of Fish and Game, informed the Committee the department is not anxious to get into wolf management, but is prepared to do so and ready to do the job, if asked by the Legislature. |
|
Upon inquiry from Senator Stennett, Huffaker stated ongoing negotiations with the Nez Perce Tribe concerning the Tribe’s role in post delisting is underway. The development of a memorandum of agreement is being negotiated that would set out the Tribe’s role and the transition process. There will be a meaningful role for the Tribe, but what that will be is to be defined. Senator Cameron stated his concern on page two, line six, of the language Schildwachter stated the permissiveness was in deference to the Office of Senator Burtenshaw inquired as to the funding set forth in Schildwachter noted that with the increased number of wolves in Idaho Upon inquiry from Senator Stennett, Schildwachter stated the 2003 |
|
Representative David Langhorst informed the Committee the wolf issue has undergone a significant transition and now is the time to proceed with state management by passing the legislation. |
|
Motion | Motion by Senator Little to send H 294 to the floor with a do pass recommendation; seconded by Senator Stennett. |
Substitute Motion | Substitute motion by Senator Schroeder to send H 294 to the fourteenth order for amendment of “‘ma'” to ‘shall’ cooperate with the legislature…”; seconded by Senator Cameron. |
Roll Call Vote on substitute motion: |
Ayes: Cameron, Kennedy and Schroeder.
Nays: Brandt, Burtenshaw, Little, Stennett, Williams and Noh Absent: Pearce Motion failed. |
Vote on original motion |
By voice, vote the original motion carried. |
HCR 22 | Orville Green, Administrator for the Waste Management and Mediation Division, Department of Environmental Quality, explained HCR 22, a concurrent resolution rejecting a rule of the Department of Environmental Quality relating to underground storage tanks, leaking petroleum storage tanks, water quality standards and waste water treatment requirements. He informed the Committee why the underground storage tank rules were |
Rick Jarvis, Underground storage tank petroleum person, DEQ, provided handouts. Copies are included in the minutes. |
|
Green stated there are some clarifications of the existing federal rules in the proposed rules with more requirements on the tank owners to notify the state when certain things happen and more self-monitoring. The intent is to clarify the rules, but to allow through the use of self-monitoring and auditing, development of a program that would cost about half of the federal program requirements. In seeking primacy, DEQ must adopt rules which mirror the federal rules and show that the state has the resources to implement the program. The federal program would entail hiring inspectors and inspecting each of the facilities a certain number of times within a certain time period. In this proposed state program, DEQ is attempting to rely more on self-monitoring which would be just as effective. The owner would do the inspecting and notify DEQ when there was an issue. Any leaks would be detected earlier and fewer inspectors would be required. This step would be the first in an effort to gain primacy from the federal government. He noted it would require showing that the state program was as effective as the federal program. He anticipates it will take a couple of years to establish that the state can achieve a better result. Only about half of the underground storage tanks comply with the rules presently and a technical improvement effort could improve that data. He noted when tanks do leak the average cost if approximately $50,000 for a contamination cleanup. Those costs could be drastically curtailed if the leaks were caught when they begin. Senator Schroeder inquired if there was anyone in attendance in support Senator Cameron noted the rule change proposed by DEQ is to allow for Jarvis introduced a few members of the advisory committee which Green informed the Committee that originally the rule was accepted by Senator Williams inquired whether everyone having an underground tank Steve Leonard, Leonard Petroleum, Twin Falls, noted his company is Roger Logan, representing Gowen Chevron, stated he was a member of |
|
Time having expired; the meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
Chairman Noh stated the committee is adjourned at the call of the chair. |
DATE: | April 9, 2003 |
TIME: | 2:00 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 435 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 2:05 p.m. | |
MINUTES: | Motion by Senator Pearce to approve the minutes of March 10, 2003; seconded by Senator Little. Motion carried Motion by Senator Little to approve the minutes of March 21, 2003; |
Chairman Noh welcomed Chairman Stevenson and Representative Bolz.
Chairman Noh informed the Committee that some aspects of the budget of Karl Dreher, Director, Department of Water Resources, provided to the Another example is the Lemhi River Basin and the conservation DWR is in the process of expanding these kinds of efforts in the Upper Another area of concern is the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer system and how Upon inquiry from Senator Little, Dreher stated if the Legislature does not Upon inquiry from Senator Pearce, Dreher stated the funding for the Upon inquiry from Senator Stennett, Dreher replied that it was more cost Upon inquiry from Senator Kennedy, Dreher noted that if some of the |
|
Motion | Motion by Senator Schroeder that the Committee recommend to JFAC that the $450,000 be reinstated and included in the budget for DWR; seconded by Senator Stennett. |
Motion withdrawn |
Following committee discussion, Senator Schroeder stated based upon Senator Cameron’s statement that if additional funds become available, DWR’s budget will be given full consideration by JFAC, with the consent of the seconder, he withdrew his motion. Senator Stennett, the seconder, agreed to withdraw the motion. |
Senator Stennett expressed concern that if the programs outlined by Dreher, along with the Stream Channel Protection Act, are not carried out by DWR, the federal government will step in and take control. |
|
Ray Houston, Budget and Policy Analysis, Legislative Services, informed the Committee the DWR budget which the Governor vetoed was about $450,000 below the Governor’s recommendation. He noted the Governor’s recommendation does eliminate the Stream Channel Protection Program. JFAC’s recommendation was below the Governor’s $450,000. Anything below the Governor’s recommendation cuts into the director’s Upon inquiry from Senator Burtenshaw, Houston stated the Water |
|
HCR 22 | Chairman Noh noted to the Committee a letter from the Idaho Retailers Association in reference to HCR 22, along with a letter from Realtors Association indicated their support and participation in the process and in opposition to HCR 22. He further advised the Committee that Mr. Jackson, one of the petroleum marketers association representatives on the advisory Committee, stated he had no position on the measure. Additionally the Chairman stated lobbyist for the association is unable to attend, but stated the association does not have an official position and did not testify in the House hearing. He noted there have been a number of telephone calls from members of the association. Representative Jack Barraclough explained HCR 22 proceedings in the Representative Raybould stated the reason for the House Committee |
James H. Werntz, Director, Idaho Operations Office, Environmental Protection Agency, stated the proposed rules by DEQ were developed over a two year period with members of the industry to provide the building blocks needed for the state to have primacy over the underground storage tank program. Idaho is last among the 50 states in regulations of underground storage tanks and EPA currently runs the program. EPA is supportive of the state developing a program to meet the needs of the state better than EPA. EPA’s cursory review of the rules proposed indicates they are a step forward. He noted the state program follows the federal program with some Idaho specific modifications which will enable station owners to come into compliance with the ongoing more stringent federal rules. He informed the Committee S 195 pending before the U.S. Congress will increase the number of inspections required and requires that states must have an underground storage tank program. The authorization is in the range of $2,000,000 to $3,000,000. He stated the underground storage tank program is a pollution prevention program. The proposed regulations by DEQ are a positive step but EPA is committed to carrying out the federal mandates under the program. Upon inquiry, Werntz stated 18 states have primacy, but 49 states have a stronger regulatory framework than Idaho. |
|
Erik Sirs, Underground Storage Tank Compliance Officer, Environmental Protection Agency, stated Washington has a full primacy program with their own rules and inspectors. Oregon has rules in place and are applying for primacy so EPA works with Oregon to run the program. Idaho is a state without regulations for operating systems in compliance. Upon inquiry, Sirs stated the proposed Idaho rules are only a clarification. One area of contention is the sump sensor issue. The federal rule does not allow the sensor so some sensors can be used as a leak detection for piping as long as they meet the leak detection standards. There are catastrophic and monthly numbers for the systems. He noted how EPA approves the systems which have not been independently tested by third party laboratories for approval to meet the federal standards. EPA allows the system to be used but they must be individually tested by a professional engineer before the system can be certified. He stated the federal requirement has been in place for a long time. The tendency across the country is that state’s are disallowing the sensors. Oregon, Alaska and Montana are a few of the states which have eliminated the sensors by state rule. From a technical standpoint, there is evidence of twenty to forty percent failure to detect leaks. Sirs stated over half of the sump sensors are not even properly installed. Upon inquiry from Senator Williams, Sirs stated the majority of the leak detection systems that are in place and commonly used are systems with automatic line leak detectors. Ninety-five percent of the installations in Idaho are mechanical. He noted there had been some interpretations by service companies and vendors in the past was that sump sensors were allowed. EPA has clarified in their policy that they can be used but they have to meet the criteria of third party evaluation. Enforcement has been discretionary by EPA. Many of his warnings have been verbal and have not progressed to the written citation. This year, from now on, those systems, approximately 5 percent of them, will have citations issued by EPA. |
|
Time having expired; the meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. |
DATE: | April 14, 2003 |
TIME: | 3:00 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 435 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Vice Chairman Pearce, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 3:05 p.m. | |
MINUTES: | Motion by Senator Burtenshaw to approve the minutes of March 17, 2003; seconded by Senator Brandt. Motion carried. Motion by Senator Williams to approve the minutes of March 19, 2003; |
HCR 22 | Chairman Noh explained to the Committee the procedure for consideration of HCR 22 and the effects of sending the legislation to the floor for consideration or holding the legislation in committee. |
Upon inquiry from Senator Kennedy, Orville Green, Department of Environmental Quality, explained the two rules set out in the legislation for rejection. He explained 0202 would move the existing rules from water quality into the new rule package while 0201 would be the new proposed underground storage tank rules and just one set of rules. |
|
Dennis Stevenson, Department of Administration, Office of Administrative Rules, verified Green’s explanation of the two rules. |
|
Keith Donahue, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Environmental Quality, confirmed and reiterated Green’s explanation of the two rules. If HCR 22 is passed, it will reject the proposed rules by DEQ. What Chairman Noh provided to the Committee a copy of a press release, April |
|
Erik Sirs, Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement, informed the Committee of an action taken by EPA against Cowboy Oil Co. of Pocatello with proposed penalties last week. He noted the original inspection in 1998 noted numerous violations. A subsequent inspection found the same violations again and the required upgrades had not been completed as of 1998. The violations were repetitive violations and accumulate on a daily basis which results in a significant fine. Upon inquiry from Chairman Noh, Sirs stated if Idaho had primacy or the new rules had been effect, Idaho authorities could have advised and worked with the violator to prevent the violation from reoccurring. |
|
Steve Allred, Director, Department of Environmental Quality, stated the state has the responsibility once the tank leaks to take care of the problem. About 25 percent of the tanks begin leaking after a period of time. The inspection, regulation and maintenance to assure they do not leak is not part of the state’s responsibility. Allred stated the situation is DEQ cannot do anything to stop the cleanup from developing but have the responsibility for problem after it is detected. The estimated average cost for cleanup of a tank is approximately $50,000. The federal program is more enforcement than prevention because EPA does not have enough inspectors. If the proposed rules had been in place, DEQ would have been involved in negotiating solutions. He stated the state needs to be participating earlier in the process to prevent leaks, rather than after the leak. Upon inquiry from Senator Kennedy, Allred stated under the negotiated Upon inquiry from Senator Little, Allred stated EPA pays the department Upon inquiry from Chairman Noh, Allred stated the costs associated with Upon inquiry, Sirs stated the electric sump sensor, alone, does not meet Upon inquiry in regard to farm tanks, Jarvis explained a spill bucket goes |
|
Dennis Baird, Baird Oil Company, Boise, past president of Idaho Petroleum Marketers Association and currently on the Board of the Idaho Petroleum Marketers Association, stated his support of HCR 22. He stated the association does not support the proposed rules by DEQ. Baird noted the alleged leak at Cowboy Oil in Pocatello was not a leak but a spill over from the filling of a truck tank. There are no regulations which would cover that situation. He noted Idaho has 17 percent of the tanks in EPA Region 10. The ongoing cleanups in the state are 220 or 4 percent of the total in the region. He further stated Idaho is first in the region for compliance with the federal rules. His statistics are from EPA Region 10, an end-of-the-year activity report on the regulated tanks. Idaho currently has an underground storage tank fund which is an insurance fund. Insurance with a $10,000 deductible is required. To qualify for the insurance fund, there is an annual line test, a yearly inspection by an insurance representative, and a daily reconciliation of the product. The provisions for the insurance fund are a duplication of EPA requirements. Baird stated DEQ rules are more stringent than EPA’s. He noted H 150 is awaiting the Governor’s signature and states that the rules should not be more stringent than federal rules without a scientific basis. This becomes effective July 1. Baird cautioned that the mandatory monthly self inspection report would evolve into a mandatory fee program. The proposed rules will cost more and not protect the environment any better. Baird stated DEQ has stated there would be eight to 10 inspectors for the program and wonders who will be funding the program. Upon inquiry, Baird stated there were two members of the association on the advisory committee (which negotiated the rules), but the majority membership does not want the proposed rules. |
|
Suzanne Budge Schaefer, Idaho Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores Association lobbyist, provided a statistical handout to the Committee (a copy is attached). She stated if DEQ is to administer the leak detection portion of the federal rules, the rules should not be more stringent than federal rules. She inquired as to how the program would be funded. She noted Idaho is in good shape compared to the other states as indicated by the national statistics. The proposed rules are more stringent in that they eliminate regulatory options which are currently available under federal law. Vapor monitoring, ground water monitoring, secondary containment, control for new systems, five years monitoring with tank tightness test, and the catastrophic line leak detection are some of the areas with increased stringency. Eliminating the federal deferral for emergency generators is another example of the proposed rules being more stringent than federal law. Another critical issue is that the proposed rules extend the chain of liability to include common carriers and make carriers responsible for enforcement through red tagging. A definition is added in the state proposed rules for common carrier which is not in the federal rules. She stated the membership of the advisory committee was composed of seventeen people with two members representing the industry. Other members of the committee were DEQ employees, installer, realtors, and bankers. She stated the association was not appropriately engaged. She further stated the record keeping requirements by the proposed rules have many more specific requirements that would be imposed on the industry than the federal rules. . |
|
Norm Hobson, Dale’s Service, Inc., Boise, a petroleum equipment installer for more than twenty years. His father founded the first such company in Idaho in 1949. He stated there were two reasons why he should not be testifying in support of HCR 22. As an installer, the proposed rule could be potentially economically beneficial to his company. The second reason he should not be testifying is because he is currently involved with inherited real property that is under DEQ action. Hobson stated he would rather deal with DEQ than EPA on this action because the intentions of DEQ are honest and sincere. He noted DEQ has staff to handle the requirements under the proposed rules and does a great deal currently in regard to education. He stated EPA has a very good record in the state of implementing the federal rules. He then stated if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it. Hobson stated in the late 1980’s an insurance program was developed that |
|
Jase Houson, professional engineer, representing Association of Idaho Cities, and works for the City of Nampa, was a member of the task force for approximately two years. He expressed concern regarding the local public safety. He reminded the committee of an incident several years ago in Caldwell, when petroleum leaked into the sewer lines, someone threw a cigarette in the sewer and the manholes were blown out. He stated there should be more care in how the fuel is delivered and handled. He noted more important is how the facilities are constructed for storage. He urged the Committee to hold HCR 22 and let the proposed rules go into effect. Representative Meyer stated the House Environmental Affairs Committee |
|
Fred Knehans, Boise, a banking associate, was a member of the advisory committee for the proposed rules representing the Idaho Bankers’ Association. He stated he has not had an opportunity to discuss this issue with members of the Idaho Bankers’ Association so he presents his testimony as a committee member and a private citizen. The prevailing idea during committee negotiations was for a preventive program so funds do not have to be expended for clean up. The insurance trust fund came from an increase in the gasoline tax within the state. If the trust fund is below a certain level, the gasoline tax will be raised to refund the trust fund. He supported H 22. |
|
Motion | Motion by Senator Pearce to send HCR 22 to the floor with a do pass recommendation; seconded by Senator Williams. |
Substitute Motion |
Substitute Motion by Senator Schroeder to hold HCR 22 in committee; seconded by Senator Stennett. |
Vote on substitute motion |
Ayes: Kennedy, Schroeder, Stennett and Noh
Nays: Brandt, Burtenshaw, Cameron, Little, Pearce and Williams Substitute motion failed. |
Vote on original motion |
Ayes: Brandt, Burtenshaw, Cameron, Little, Pearce, and Williams
Nays: Kennedy, Schroeder, Stennett and Noh Motion carried. |
There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. |
DATE: | April 23, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, and Little |
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
Senators Pearce, Stennett and Kennedy excused. |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:40 p.m..
Chairman Noh explained the purpose of the Executive Session meeting. Chairman Noh informed the Committee a current opinion of the Attorney Chairman Noh stated he had met at length with Betsy Russell, President of Clive Strong, Deputy Attorney General, Chief, Natural Resources |
|
MOTION | Motion by Senator Brandt, pursuant to Senate Rule 20(E) and Idaho Code Section 67-2345(f), that the Committee resolve into an executive session for the purpose of considering and advising legal counsel on pending litigation relating to federal reserved water right claims filed in the Snake River Basin Adjudication; seconded by Senator Williams. |
Roll call vote on motion: |
Ayes: Brandt, Burtenshaw, Cameron, Little, Schroeder, Williams and Noh
Nays: None Absent: Kennedy, Pearce and Stennett. Motion carried. |
Betsy Russell, President, Idaho Press Club, respectfully objected to the closure of the meeting on the grounds that it would violate the Idaho Open Meeting Law which states, “All meetings of any standing, special or select committee of either house of the legislature of the state of Idaho shall be open to the public at all times.” She requested that the objection be noted in the minutes. |
|
Executive Session |
The Committee went into Executive Session at 1:55 p.m. |
Reconvened | Motion by Senator Brandt to adjourn the Executive Session at 3:00 p.m.; seconded by Senator Williams. Motion carried. |
HJM 12 | Representative Cuddy informed the Committee of HJM 12, stating findings of the legislature and requesting that the U.S. Congress fully support the Healthy Forest Initiative and individual proposals of the United States Department of Agriculture and Department of Interior. He noted the risk of wildfire and forest health. In 2000, 1,400,000 forest acres were burned while another 8,600,000 were at risk due to insects, disease and fire. He noted passage of the joint memorial is an indication of support for the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the implementation of measures to improve forest health and to reduce damage to the environment and loss of natural resources by wildfire. |
Motion | Motion by Senator Little to send HJM 12 to the floor with a do pass recommendation; seconded by Senator Brandt. Motion carried. |
Senator Williams commented and complimented the timber industry mills for their innovative and technical improvements to utilize more of the timber for production. |
|
There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. |
DATE: | April 28, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Senators Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Stennett, Kennedy |
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
Senator Pearce absent; Senators Cameron and Little excused.. |
MINUTES: | Motion by Senator Burtenshaw to approve the minutes of April 23, 2003; seconded by Senator Williams. Motion carried. |
Chairman Noh provided to the Committee a copy of a Boise Police Department news report of the death of a thirteen-month-old child by a wolf-hybrid. Chairman Noh informed the Committee of the legislative history of private ownership of wolves or wolf-hybrids. The legislature did attempt to address the concern, but the proposed legislation did not come out of committee. |
|
Depredation account |
Chairman Noh informed the Committee of House appropriation legislation which uses a $1,000,000 from the depredation account to address state budget concerns. |
Dr. Kent Marlor, who represented wildlife in the beginning of the depredation account and advisory committee, stated in 1989 legislation transferred $500,000 from the Fish and Game Account for a depredation account. The account was to compensate farmers and ranchers for big game depredation losses to crops, fences and equipment. He noted the losses in 1988/89 were significant due to the multiple year droughts which resulted in big game foraging in cultivated fields. The claims were submitted to the State Board of Examiners with the state auditor responsible for authentication of the claims and supervision of the claim process. In June 1990 at the close of the filing period, there were 111 claims filed for 1988 totaling $l, 390,317 and for 1989 93 claims were filed totaling $454,198. Priority was given to the 1988 claims, but with a prorated reduction. The attempt by the Board of Examiners to address the issue was futile. Everyone in the state was angry and agriculture was furious. People in the wildlife area were also concerned because $500,000 had been taken from the budget of the Department of Fish and Game. During the following legislative session of 1989, a wildlife depredation The agreement featured the creation of a $2,250,000 two-tiered fund to A disagreement concerning livestock losses on public lands resulted in a Marlor noted there were many compromises resulting in a check and Some of the subsequent changes have been the addition of goats in the There have been no changes in the secondary depredation account and this Marlor noted there can always be improvement in a program, but the |
|
Dave Bivens, an original member of committee establishing the depredation account, stated his personal, political and Senate experience as chairman of the Fish and Game Committee, predecessor to the Resources and Environment Committee. He represented the Farm Bureau on the original advisory committee. Bivens noted there has always been a problem concerning depredation and public access to private lands. Representative Walt Little was the first one to create the proto type landholder-sportsmen organization in cooperation with the department. Representative Vard Chatburn was Little’s successor on this issue until 1988 when the negotiating committee was established and subsequent legislation. He noted the department provided the professional facilitator for the committee of six sportsmen and six agricultural interests. He stated the final agreement was a very delicate balance. Monies were provided from the state general fund representing those who did not purchase fish and game licenses. The funds were never to be spent, but to be used to generate revenue. Access to or across private land has always been a concern and a challenge to the advisory committee, the department, sportsmen and landholders for many years. The Access Yes program is the final product of many years of effort and provides a future for all state citizens for outdoor endeavors. He noted the extensive time and efforts in developing the agreement which is still an extremely delicate balance. The program would be seriously damaged or total destroyed by the removal of the $1,000,000 from the depredation account, which was considered submitted in behalf of the citizens who did not contribute through hunting and fishing licenses. Upon inquiry from Senator Stennett, Bivens stated the $1,000,000 Marlor stated that the department provides $200,000 each year for |
|
Carl Rey, chairman of the Fish and Game Advisory Committee, provided to the Committee two handouts, copies are attached. The depredation program is a very complicated program which involves five statutes. The original task force provided significant foresight in developing the fish and game advisory committee by legislature to provide oversight of the complicated program. The program has worked very well for fourteen years and reflects the endeavors and foresight of the original task force. The structure of the advisory committee comprises agricultural The reason for the amount in the accounts is that claims tend to be cyclic. Upon inquiry from Senator Williams, Rey stated one of the most difficult |
|
Jim Unsworth, Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Bureau Chief, commented that the secondary trust fund is a small portion of the overall depredation budget. Of the $200,000 in the primary depredation fund received, approximately $80,000 are paid annually in claims. The secondary fund is used to pay for claims greater than $10,000. This is the first year funds have been generated in excess of the $3,000,000. Annually $40,000 is paid for claims from that fund. A third part of the funding for the depredation program comes from the sale of tags. $.75 goes into a dedicated fund to pay for winter feeding and the other $.75 goes into a fund which pays for the operations of the depredation program. Additionally, $5 comes from nonresident tags for the depredation management fund which funds studies on deer and elk populations for management purposes and target harvests. Unsworth stated each year, approximately. $700,000 in sportsmen’s dollars goes into the depredation program. Unsworth stated the goal of the depredation program is prevention. There Senator Schroeder stated, through his experiences on and with the Region 2 Upon inquiry from Senator Stennett, Unsworth stated the maximum paid |
|
Lake Cascade | Al Van Vooren, Department of Fish and Game, Regional Supervisor for Southwest Idaho, stated the department is beginning a process to investigate all the ramifications to balance with the fishery benefits in regard to possibly draining Lake Cascade. He stated the process would not begin this fall. The process is not just from the Department of Fish and Game but is a cooperative project by several state and federal agencies (Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). The project was initiated by the Department of Fish and Game and is intended as a rural economic development project. From the three meetings held to date, the citizens support recovery of the Lake Cascade fishery on different levels with a minimal risk to the irrigators. The working relationship established with the irrigators has been positive and cooperative. Additionally, there is a citizen group that would like to proceed full steam ahead without further discussion. Another group would like to know more of the specifics about the project. Yet another group was looking for the simple and easy answer with no risk through proposed alternative methods to restore the fishery. |
Dale Allen, Department of Fish and Game, Regional Fishery Manager, McCall, stated Lake Cascade is the fourth largest water body in the state. It is a shallow reservoir of twenty-five feet with a large excess nutrient problem that has occurred in the past two decades. The lake is currently under a TMDL, Clean Water Act, process. Yellow perch is the focus of the fishery and first appeared in 1957. The lake began to be filled in 1951. He noted the lake used to be the heaviest fished lake in the state in the ’80’s and was the number one fishery in the state. Yellow perch was the mainstay of the fishery, with 10-13 inch fish quite common. The perch harvest dropped from 50,000,000 a year to zero in 1997. The financial loss to the local economy is estimated at $5.9 million annually. He provided a power point presentation to the Committee depicting The department’s current management is stocking $170,000 worth of fish He noted this would be a federal action because of the state and the Spring irrigation supply impacts the Emmett Valley and the lower Payette Allen noted there would need to be some changes to the state statutes in As the lake is drained there will be movement of sediment and nutrients The draining would not affect recreation because there would not be any The restocking would be with yellow perch with eggs for the first Some mitigation aspects involve the construction of a marina at Cascade The time frame is May 2003 for the NEPA process with the EIS in May Upon inquiry from Senator Burtenshaw, Allen noted 310,000 acre feet of The fish species causing the problem are native species of the Columbia |
|
TMDL | Chairman Noh reminded the Committee of the decision by the Idaho Supreme Court last week regarding the TMDL litigation. He noted David Mabe, Department of Environmental Quality, and Michael Bogart, Legal Counsel, Office of the Governor, will bring the committee up to date on the implications of the court decision. |
David Mabe, Administrator of Water Programs, Department of Environmental Quality, provided a copy of the Idaho Supreme Court decision to the Committee. He noted Darrell Early, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Environmental Quality, is also present. He showed to the Committee the TMDL documents for two projects, indicating the substantive volume of the documents. Mabe stated the decision by the Supreme Court sets out that TMDLs must be rules and that the documents should be adopted as rules. He noted the decision by the Supreme Court was based on administrative procedures and the definition of a rule is too broad to be workable. The decision states that the TMDL meets the definition of a rule under the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act and the mining companies were correct in seeking district court review. The district court was correct in determining that the TMDL was void because it was not promulgated according to the state requirements for rule making. He noted the case was specific to the Coeur d’Alene River above Lake Coeur d’Alene. The TMDL, adopted by the state and EPA, was in regards to lead, zinc and cadmium. He noted the Supreme Court decision will not affect the EPA approval of the state program. Mabe explained the department’s procedure in adopting TMDLs. He noted Mabe stated there are four ways to resolve the issue. Least acceptable |
|
Potlatch | Mabe then informed the Committee on the status of the Potlatch water quality permit application. Potlatch has been in the process of renewing permit for four years. The process involves Potlatch application submitted to EPA for the issuance of a permit. EPA reviews the information and makes a decision about the permit. Because it is a federal permit, it is subject to ESA consultation. Potlatch has submitted a biological evaluation and EPA has determined that the permit is not likely to affect the species. The Fish and Wildlife Services have been working on a consultation, considering the evaluation and has augmented the information with their own. Fish and Wildlife Serves have determined the permit will be a jeopardy permit. If issued, it will affect four species of fish on the river. EPA, Potlatch and the state have been in negotiations because of the 401 certification. The draft became a public document even though the biological opinion is not final. The state is attempting to work with the federal agencies to resolve some of the questions in the biological opinion so the permit can be issued. EPA has agreed to have another hearing on the permit and the state will draft a new certification. Under the ESA consultation process, Potlatch would be taking an endangered species if a permit was issued at this time. Mabe stated DEQ is uncertain that the draft opinion is based on all the Chairman Noh stated if the state had assumed primacy of the point source |
Time having expired; the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. |
DATE: | May 1, 2003 |
TIME: | 1:30 p.m. |
PLACE: | Room 433 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chairman Noh, Senators Cameron, Schroeder, Burtenshaw, Williams, Brandt, Little, Stennett, Kennedy and Senator Kent Banner (for Senator Pearce). |
Members Excused: |
Senator Little excused. |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Noh at 1:35 p.m. | |
H 458 | David Mabe, Administrator, Water Quality Program, Department of Environmental Quality, informed the Committee of the background of H 458. Mabe reminded the Committee of the decision of the Idaho Supreme Court recently issued. He noted H 458 does not change the court decision, but sets forth that TMDLs are not rules, but proposed plans. Mabe informed the Committee that TMDLs to be undertaken this year are: Brownlee, Mid-Snake at Succor Creek, Snake at Idaho Falls, Willow Creek, Raft River, Goose Creek, Big Lost River, Weiser River and Weiser Flat, St. Joe and St. Maries Rivers and Bissel Creek. If TMDLs are to be subject to the rule making process, the costs to the In addition to the financial considerations of the rule making process, the |
Senator Kennedy expressed concern whether there would be enforcement of the TMDLs and why it was the word “enforce” was removed. Mabe stated because TMDLs are plans based on DEQ standards, enforcement is by appropriate agencies through the permit process. |
|
Norm Semanko, Idaho Water Users Association, stated the organization’s support of the legislation. He noted their participation in the development of the TMDL process and the intent that they were to be plans not rules. He expressed concern that the court decision would jeopardize the validity of the TMDL process and affect the schedule required by the federal district court. He noted water quality standards would not be changed and the TMDLs would be integrated to meet those standards. |
|
Dick Rush, Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, stated the organization’s support for the legislation, noting there have been extensive meetings over the past year to bring the issue to negotiated proposed legislation. The legislation has not been hastily thrown together, but developed through negotiations. |
|
Lauren McLean, Idaho Conservation League, stated their opposition to the legislation because of their concern about the TMDL process and that the legislation does not undermine current projects. She expressed concern for the replacement of the word “enforce” in the legislation stating the need for TMDL enforcement. |
|
Kevin Beaton, Boise, attorney, representing Potlatch, stated the company’s support of H 458 and noted the letter dated April 30, 2003, from Jane Gorsuch, Vice President of Intermountain Forest Association, to the Committee in support of the legislation. Beaton stated TMDLs were intended to be plans to be enforced through DEQ rules which would allow challenges to the proposed rules. |
|
Lynn Tominaga, Idaho Farm Bureau, stated their support for H 458 and noted agriculture’s proactive status. |
|
Motion | Motion by Senator Burtenshaw to sen H 458 to the floor with a do pass recommendation; seconded by Senator Brandt. Motion carried. |
Adjournment | There being no further matters to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m. |