HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WATER

 

 

February 18, 2003   Hearing Room B

8:30 AM Tapes  20 - 22

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:            Rep. Bob Jenson, Chair

Rep. Jackie Dingfelder, Vice-Chair

Rep. Jeff Kropf, Vice-Chair

Rep. Linda Flores

Rep. Jeff Kruse

Rep. Mike Schaufler

Rep. Carolyn Tomei

 

STAFF PRESENT:                  Pete Test, Committee Administrator

Ryan Sherlock, Committee Assistant

 

 

MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD:            HB 2259 – Public Hearing and Work Session

HB 2255 – Public Hearing

HB 2253 – Public Hearing

 

 

These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules.  Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words.  For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.

 

TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 20, A

 

Chair Jenson

Calls meeting to order at 8: 36 a.m. and opens public hearing on HB 2259.

HB 2259 – PUBLIC HEARING

005

Pete Test

Offers a description of the bill.

010

Chair Jenson

Clarifies the objective and function of the committee regarding HB 2259.

030

Ed Bowles

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Division Administrator. Offers written testimony (EXHIBIT A) and presentation (EXHIBIT B) regarding HB 2259:

  • HB 2259 Overview: Restoration and Enhancement (R&E)
  • R&E Overview

065

Chair Jenson

Asks for clarification of the source for matching funds.

070

Bowles

Responds that there are several sources of the matching funds, and points out that there is no restriction in statute as to where these funds come from.

075

Chair Jenson

Asks for a specific percentage.

080

Bowles

Refers to Mr. Stahl

085

Tom Stahl

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Restoration and Enhancement Program Coordinator. Guesses that the total funding from Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) is about ten percent.

090

Bowles

Continues with presentation:

  • R&E Funding

135

Rep. Kruse

Asks if the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has many Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues.

140

Bowles

Explains ADA issues facing the ODFW. Continues with presentation:

  • R&E Project Type
  • “R” Projects
  • “E” Projects
  • R&E Projects
  • Impacts of HB 2259 Failure

200

Rep. Dingfelder

Asks how the projects funded by the ODFW relate to the OWEB funded Project, and how these projects are consistent.

205

Bowles

Discusses the efforts to keep projects consistent.

235

Rep. Dingfelder

Clarifies that there is no overlap or duplication between the two agencies, or if there were that there is knowledge of this and cooperation.

245

Bowles

Comments on the communication between the two agencies.

255

Rep. Flores

Asks about the balance of the R&E funding.

260

Bowles

Observes that the balance is made up with matching funds.

270

Rep. Kruse

Clarifies that those matching funds could be used for other groups.

275

Bowles

Acknowledges.

280

Chair Jenson

Recalls Rep. Dingfelder’s concerns about duplicity among projects, and clarifies that some of the R&E projects are out of OWEB’s authority.

285

Bowles

Discusses the differing authority.

295

Darlene Kline-Dolby

Offers written testimony (EXHIBIT D) in support of HB 2259.

360

Les Helgeson

Native Fish Society. Offers written testimony (EXHIBIT E) against HB 2259.

TAPE 21, A

010

Rep. Tomei

Asks whether the maintenance problem would become worse if the fee did not pass.

015

Helgeson

Provides that he does not know, but discusses several possibilities.

025

Rep. Dingfelder

Asks whether Mr. Helgeson would rather see a different amount of the fee go to facility maintenance, and expresses her concern for how removing funds would create better funding.

040

Helgeson

Comments on the possibilities for addressing the problem.

050

Rep. Schaufler

Indicates that he is unsure that repealing the fee would accomplish the goals the Native Fish Society supports.

055

Helgeson

Expresses his groups wish to see more of the fund go to maintenance.

065

Dave Peters

Coquille STEP. Offers testimony in support of HB 2259.

175

Chair Jenson

Thanks Mr. Peters and closes the public hearing on HB 2259. Opens a work session on HB 2259.

HB 2259 – WORK SESSION

180

Chair Jenson

Asks Mr. Bowles to address the maintenance issue.

190

Bowles

Refers to the Fish Restoration and Enhancement Program: 2001-2003 Report to the Oregon Legislature (Exhibit C), and discusses maintenance issues.

225

Rep. Flores

Refers to the list of restoration projects, and asks about the Elk River installation of freezer door.

230

Bowles

Explains the costs regarding the freezer door.

245

Rep. Kropf

Indicates that he believes some of the listed costs are rather high for their intended purposes.

260

Bowles

Refers to Mr. Stahl.

265

Tom Stahl

Responds to the issue of project costs, including the use of the project titles and the extent of projects.

285

Rep. Kropf

Indicates the legislature’s sensitivity to allocation of funds.

295

Rep. Flores

Adds that the handrail installation costs seem high.

300

Bowles

Explains that the mentioned handrail is an Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) obligation.

305

Rep. Schaufler

Comments that the costs presented could be reasonable.

315

Rep. Kruse

Points out that the particulars of funding will be addressed by Ways and Means Committee.

320

Chair Jenson

Thanks Rep. Kruse for his comment and concurs. Points out the mandate of the committee is to decide the policy issue and the subsequent referral to Ways and Means should address the funding the issues.

330

Rep. Tomei

MOTION:  Moves HB 2259 to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation and BE REFERRED to the committee on Ways and Means by prior reference.

340

Rep. Kruse

Expresses concern for the lack of an emergency clause in the bill.

350

 

VOTE:  7-0

AYE:            In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye.

 

Chair Jenson

The motion CARRIES.

360

Chair Jenson

Closes the work session on HB 2259, and opens a public hearing on HB 2255.

HB 2255 – PUBLIC HEARING

370

Pete Test

Committee Administrator. Offers a description of HB 2255.

TAPE 20, B

002

Grant Higginson

Oregon Department of Human Services, State Public Health Office. Offers written testimony (EXHIBIT F) in support of HB 2255 with reference to (EXHIBIT G).

070

Rep. Kruse

Asks what the match rate is.

074

Higginson

Indicates the federal match rate is between fifty and sixty percent.

075

Rep. Dingfelder

Asks how the program is currently funded.

077

Higginson

Explains that currently the program receives $1.2 million of general funds, and the rest comes from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or from other sources.

088

Rep. Dingfelder

Clarifies that the fee would supplement the funds which come from the general fund.

090

Higginson

Discusses the use of those funds.

092

Rep. Dingfelder

Clarifies that the fees would only be collected from public water suppliers.

095

Higginson

Acknowledges.

100

Dave Leland

Department of Human Services, Drinking Water Division Manger. Offers a definition of the term public water systems which includes private suppliers.

105

Rep. Schaufler

Indicates his support for clean water, but asks how the department justifies charging those districts which currently comply a fee to make other districts comply.

115

Higginson

Comments on the issue of compliance.

125

Chair Jenson

Points out that HB 2255 does have a subsequent referral to Ways and Means, but discusses his policy concerns with the bill and proposed fee.

150

Higginson

Acknowledges the sensitivity to increasing, but expresses the basic need to ensure clean drinking water.

160

Willie Tiffany

League of Oregon Cities, Senior Staff Associate. Offers written testimony (EXHIBIT H) in opposition to HB 2255.

190

Susan Schneider

City of Portland, Government Relations Office. Offers written testimony (EXHIBIT I) in opposition to HB 2255.

270

Amanda Rich

Special Districts Association of Oregon, and Tri-County Water Resources Association. Offers testimony in opposition to HB 2255.

305

Rep. Tomei

Asks whether Ms. Rich is implying that those who need the service are not those who are paying for the service.

310

Rich

Comments on who would pay for the service and who would receive the benefits of the service.

320

Doug Riggs

Central Oregon Cities Organization. Offers testimony in opposition to HB 2255.

355

Chair Jenson

Comments on the nature of taxation and its inherent unfairness.

TAPE 21, B

020

Liz Frenkel

League of Women Voters’. Offers written testimony (EXHIBIT J) in support of HB 2255.

050

Chair Jenson

Closes the public hearing on HB 2255, and opens a public hearing on HB 2253.

HB 2253 – PUBLIC HEARING

065

Pete Test

Offers a description of HB 2253.

075

John Lilly

Oregon Division of State Lands, Assistant Director. Offers written testimony (EXHIBIT K) in support of HB 2253.

140

Rep. Kruse

Clarifies an inclusion in the permit.

142

Lilly

Acknowledges.

155

Rep. Kropf

Asks what would happen if to the below 50 cubic yards issue if the assumption goal is achieved.

160

Lilly

Discusses the below 50 yard exemption.

183

Rep. Kropf

Clarifies Mr. Lilly’s response.

193

Lilly

Further discusses the 50 cubic yard issue.

215

Rep. Kropf

Asks whether the general authorization requires a permit when under 50 yards.

220

Lilly

Explains that no permit is required.

230

Rep. Kropf

Asks if you still need a permit.

235

Lilly

Clarifies that the general authorization constitutes the permit.

250

Rep. Tomei

Asks for clarification on why the applicant does not better fund the program.

255

Lilly

Explains the reasoning behind the applicant fee.

280

Chair Jenson

Points out that there is not a work session scheduled on HB 2253, and asks that Mr. Lilly continue with his testimony.

290

Lilly

Concludes his testimony in support of HB 2253.

350

Chuck Bennett

Confederation of Oregon School Administrators. Offers testimony in support of HB 2253.

TAPE 22, A

002

Laurie Wimmer-Whealand

Oregon Education Association. Offers testimony in support of HB 2253.

030

Jon Oshel

Association of Oregon Counties, County Road Program Manager. Offers written testimony (EXHIBIT L) in opposition to HB 2253.

090

Tom Quintal

Salem, Oregon. Offers testimony in opposition to HB 2253.

 

Tim Cremer

Oregon Independent Miners. Offers written testimony (EXHIBIT M) in support of HB 2253.

185

Mel Stewart

Salem, Oregon. Offers testimony in opposition to HB 2253 with reference to (EXHIBIT N).

220

Glen Stonebrink

Oregon Hay and Quarry Association, and the Oregon Cattlemen Association. Offers testimony in opposition to HB 2253.

260

Dave Babits

Thompson’s Mills. Offers testimony in opposition to HB 2253.

295

Rich Angstrom

Oregon Concrete Aggregate Producers Association, President. Offers testimony in opposition to HB 2253.

 

Chair Jenson

Closes public hearing on HB 2253, and adjourns the meeting at 10:37 a.m.

 

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

A – HB 2259, written testimony, Ed Bowles, 3 pp.

B – HB 2259, presentation, Ed Bowles, 9 pp.

C – HB 2259, Fish Restoration and Enhancement Program: 2001-2003 Report to the Oregon Legislature, Ed Bowles, 12 pp.

D – HB 2259, written testimony, Darlene Kline-Dolby, 1 p.

E – HB 2259, written testimony, Les Helgeson, 1 p.

F – HB 2255, written testimony, Grant Higginson, 3 pp.

G – HB 2255, written testimony, John Iani, 2 pp.

H – HB 2255, written testimony, Willie Tiffany, 1 p.

I – HB 2255, written testimony, Susan Schneider, 1 p.

J – HB 2255, written testimony, Liz Frenkel, 1 p.

K – HB 2253, written testimony, John Lilly, 9 pp.

L – HB 2553, written testimony, Jon Oshel, 2 pp.

M – HB 2553, written testimony, Tim Cremer, 1 p.

N – HB 2553, Oregon Division of State Lands: State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP), Mel Stewart, 5 pp.