The Coastal Zone Planning Initiative that will appear on this August’s Primary Ballot as Proposition 2 is very different from the Bill that passed the House 40-0 in the 2011 session of the Legislature.
As proof - only 7 out of 60 Alaska Legislators supported Proposition 2 when it was proposed as legislation in the 2012 session of the Legislature. Remember —
• There had been debate on Coastal Zone 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 7 Legislators supported what will be Proposition 2 in the form of legislation - 6 Democrats and 1 Republican from Homer.
If 53 Republicans and Democrats can agree on something we should all take a step back and really consider what the Initiative will and won’t do.
When I came into office in December 2002, I pledged to streamline the Alaska Coastal Management Program because the current system was not working effectively. Some cases had resulted in unnecessary and needless delays. (Example Keith Koontz trapping Cabin Construction Permit, which took 7½ years just to get a consistence determination for a trapping cabin.)
The specific reforms we made in 2003 were:
• to consolidate permitting in DNR for all State permits. Along with the changes we made to the Coastal Zone Program we passed legislation in 2003 that made DNR the large project coordinating agency. DNR already had the most permitting authority under Title 38 and had the in-house expertise to represent the State’s best interest;
• Because we moved all permitting coordination to DNR, the Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) was no longer necessary so we dissolved it. Because all permit coordination was within DNR we moved the Habitat Division to DNR. This was done to coordinate habitat issues with the other resource issues that DNR was attempting to balance;
• We required that enforceable policies meet a uniform set of 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 (DEC) permits approved by the State were deemed approved under the Alaska Coastal 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; and
• No third party appeals were allowed.
The Initiative that will be on the Ballot as Proposition 2 repeals these 2003 reforms. This means that DEC permits must be obtained twice - once at the State level and then again at the coastal district level, with possibly more restrictions.
The changes initiated by the Legislature in 2003 did not take away the voice of local districts as seen in the regulations promulgated in 2005 after the 2003 reforms. Those regulations deferred to the expertise of the local coastal districts and required DNR to achieve a consensus among the applicants, the permitting agencies and the coastal district.
Because it does not allow for amendments and corrections as legislation does, the Initiative process and is not the right vehicle for passing complex legislation such as the 15-page Proposition 2. As the AG pointed out at page 12 of his November 29, 2011 letter to Lieutenant governor Treadwell:
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. Also, some provisions raise specific constitutional issues or give rise to constitutional concerns.
The complexities, inconsistencies, and ambiguities will cause litigation and litigation will cause significant delays in obtaining consistency determinations.
Support for the initiative comes mostly from people involved in local government entities who want to have more control over state and federal decisions. This demand for 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 Ballot Proposition 2.
Comments (15)
Add comment"...local government entities who want to have more control over
state and federal decisions."
Isn't that the idea?
I did not notice the "typographical errors".
The DNR would appear to be best suited for the role of "large project coordinating agency" along with DEC review, but lumping Habitat into Natural Resources doesn't sound like an amiable mix.
If the legislature has been debating this coastal plan for two years without success perhaps it is appropriate the citizenry lighten their work load.
The "government control" most citizens are weary of, in my opinion, resides 3000 miles away in Washington DC, not downtown Juneau.
Or is it the citizenry is just not equipped to fully appreciate the complexities of a coastal plan?
That settles it
I was leaning toward supporting Prop 2, but still had some lingering doubts.
Now that Frank Murkowski has come out against it, all of my doubts have been erased.
Yes on 2.
Alaska's reality distortion field - sorry governor you're in it
Many Alaskans are in a reality distortion field. Former Governor Murkowski's reality distortion field arguments notwithstanding, Alaska needs a check on unfettered (emphasis added) development. Plainly, the well-heeled industry wants to have its cake and eat it too - note the army of industries and businesses opposed to this initiative. I say this despite a longstanding belief in Alaska resource development mining and petroleum.
Coming from the pro-industry side of the fence I'd still say that perhaps too much unfettered development is clearly overboard, excessive and not good for Alaska. Still, like many others, I dislike being inundated with regulations (federal wetland regulations are particularly irksome in a wetlands rich state.)
Nonetheless earlier Republican leaders nation and state (Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, to some extent Abraham Lincoln and Richard Nixon long and not solo long ago) recognized industries weakness at self-control and so acted to establish lines of command and control. Even Republican Governors Hickel and Hammond (the former governor belatedly) recognized that Alaska and its constitution mandates that we benefit from its resources - that industry could not be trusted to make the best decisions. Finally even former Governor Palin placed some sideboards on industrial excess.
Plainly, industry recognizes the political and financial leverage it has at the moment (along with the relative financial weakness of those favoring responsible environmental protection.) Recognizing its presently favorable political position, it is choosing to launch a full-scale assault on any meaningful regulation.
So, today many of us, who favor reasonable, but well-forged and tempered (thoughtful) development are in the untenable position of voting for something which may be overreaching, but which industry and its sycophants have cornered us into doing.
Although I like many of former Governor Murkowski's ideas (railroad extension to Canada, a Southeast state forest, electrical transmission line extensions to Canada and across the state) I think your position is wrong on this initiative and reflects a distortion of reality.
Rather than appreciating that many Alaskans value an Alaska which remains clean, but prosperous and what many understand Alaska to be; industry has chosen to go for the whole enchilada in a reckless grab. This being said, it may well win this battle - the problem will remain of federal supremacy EPA whatever one thinks of it will remain in the driver's seat.
Although I do not want the excessive content of the initiative, many of us have no choice but to favor it over unbridled (distorted) development. So, I'd recommend those who think along the lines that I do, hold their nose and vote in favor of the initiative.
The initiative can be changed in a few years - so if it passes industry gets a time out, much like the petulant child that it's behavior has come to resemble. The legislature gets chided and sent back to the chalk board with a mandate to draw up something more responsible and reasonable. And we maintain an Alaska that is in a condition that many of us came here to live in, were born into or who's ancestry goes back tens of thousands of years.
Thanks,Governor.
Vote NO on 2.
Even in the face of proof...
the stupid and lazy will show their hate and ignorance - nice to know you are acknowledging the influence of human beings on climate change, New Life.
I must be a card carrying member of the "stupid and lazy".
My "hate & ignorance", though, was hidden under layers of stupidity. Leave it to you to bring it out into the daylight.
Not More From Frank
Frank Murkowski made a mess of the old Coastal Zone Management program when he was Governor by transferring project review from the Office of the Governor to line bureaucrats within a single agency. Instead of having exempt officials review projects, Frank and his crew made the process less efficient and politicized, sometimes pitting agencies against each other or ignoring valuable input from local areas. This was when Frank was busy moving the Habitat Division from Fish & Game to the Department of Natural Resources and other politically driven activities that made little or no sense in terms of sound management practices. The entire debate about the Coastal Managemnet program now playing out could have been avoided had Murkowski not mismanaged the old program.
Why Frank Murkowski, the failed banker, less than adored US Senator and Governor who came in third during the 2006 primary, is weighing in here nearly defies imagination but then it is pretty much obvious that Frank has always been a self-absorbed guy.
There are a couple decent reasons not to vote for Proposition #2 but Frank Murkowski's opinion isn't one of them.
Thank you
Dear Governor Murkowski,
Thank you for taking responsibility for reducing local influence in local development and resource issues. The disagreement over initiative 2 is whether to restore that influence so that people living in coastal communities have a voice in the decision making process or whether State and federal decision makers can ignore these people. Lobbyists for large national and international companies know how to influence both federal and State politicians, but they may not be as successful influencing people who live where the action takes place.
I hope that all Alaskans realize this choice and vote for the initiative.
DonG: Point taken.
***
Yes, Frank, we're aware of your misdeeds
But thanks for reiterating them. Thanks as well for your stated opposition to Prop. 2---I think it does supporters of the measure more favors than you realize.
Pitiful excuse for a
Pitiful excuse for a governor, but he's right on 2. If the old rules were so wonderful, why do we need the changes? No on Prop 2.
Hold my nose and vote "YES"?
Are you kidding? Passing a law and hoping to improve it is akin to marrying someone in hopes of changing your new spouse. I can see the proposal now. Prospective groom on one knee with a ring cut from a lead sewer pipe asking, "Will you hold your nose and marry me? I'm holding mine!"