default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Measure builds bureaucracy: A bipartisan majority of legislators rejected coastal zone proposal

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Sunday, July 29, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 10:36 am, Mon Jan 21, 2013.

Community perspective

Make no mistake, the coastal zone planning initiative that will appear on August’s primary election ballot as Proposition 2 is very different from the bill that passed the House, 40-0, in the 2011 session of the Legislature. Proposition 2 will add more government and another permitting layer that will delay projects and cost jobs. 

Only seven out of 60 Alaska legislators supported what will be Proposition 2 when it was proposed as legislation in the 2012 session of the Legislature.

Remember:

• There had been debate on coastal zone management for two years, so legislators were fully aware of the impact of the differing proposals.

• The vote in the 2011 session showed that all 40 House members and many from industry were willing to support reasonable coastal zone legislation.

• Yet, only seven legislators supported what will be Proposition 2 in the form of legislation — six Democrats and one Republican from Homer. 

If 53 Republicans and Democrats can agree on something, we should all take a step back and really consider what Proposition 2 will and won’t do. 

When I came into office in December 2002, I pledged to streamline the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program because it was not working effectively. Some cases had resulted in mind boggling delays that cost jobs. For example, it took Keith Koontz, of Fairbanks, 7 1/2 years and a lot of litigation just to get a consistency determination for a trapping cabin. 

The specific reforms we made in 2003 were designed to speed up the consistency review process: 

• We consolidated permitting in the Department of Natural Resources for all state permits. We made DNR the large project coordinating agency. DNR had already the most permitting authority under Title 38 and had the in-house expertise to represent the state’s best interests. 

• Because we moved all permitting coordination to DNR, the Division of Governmental Coordination was no longer necessary, so we dissolved it and placed the coastal zone program in DNR.

• We required that enforceable policies meet a uniform set of science-based state standards, as determined by DNR, for the specific purpose of achieving uniformity of the coastal zone rules throughout the state. 

• Department of Environmental Conservation permits approved by the state were deemed approved under the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Plan. In other words, if DEC approved a permit, an applicant would not have to take the time to go through the process to obtain the same permit, with potentially more restrictions, from the coastal districts.

• No third party appeals were allowed. 

The initiative that will be on the primary ballot as Proposition 2 repeals the 2003 reforms. This means that DEC permits must be obtained twice — once at the state level and then again at the coastal district level, probably with more restrictions. The initiative will move the coastal zone management program to the Department of Commerce, so there will be no permit coordination at DNR, just the creation of another agency designed to issue another permit. Coastal district plans and enforceable policies will no longer be based upon uniform standards determined by DNR, but instead by an unelected board. 

Proposition 2 provides no state standards to limit the extent of a coastal district. Thus, the coastal zone can extend as far up the drainages that flow to the coast as the district can argue — if it can get seven votes on the unelected, unaccountable council. 

Because an initiative may not be amended and corrected, as is done with legislation, the initiative process is not the right vehicle for passing complex legislation such as the 15-page Proposition 2. The attorney general, in a Nov. 29 letter to Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell, said: “We note the initiative bill is long and complex. In places the (initiative) bill is not clearly drafted and contains a number of typographical errors, inconsistencies and ambiguities.”

Those will cause litigation, and litigation will cause significant delays in obtaining consistency determinations and cost Alaska jobs. 

The initiative is being promoted by government people who want to add more government and more conditions to projects that have been approved by state and federai agencies. More government stands in stark contrast to Alaskans who are saying we already have too much government in our lives. 

I urge the defeat of the Proposition 2.

Frank Murkowski was elected to the U.S. Senate from Alaska in 1980 and as governor of Alaska in 2002.

More about

More about

Advertisement

Stanley Nissan Service

Stanley Nissan service

Find Yourself

You're ready for something new. New challenges, new places, new adventures. E...

www.walkerforalaska.com

Bill Walker, candidate for governor, was born in Fairbanks before statehood. ...

Wes Madden 2014 Ad #2 Fairbanks

Description

www.walkerforalaska.com

Gubernatorial candidate, Bill Walker, is concerned that the state is in a $7 ...