HB 134, Mixing Zones for Cruise Ships
Salty
2009-03-10 06:47:36
Trollers,
Chip Toma called personally and asked me to share this with fishermen. A message to your Representative in the Alaska Legislature might make a difference.
HB 134 is before House Resources this coming week. This bill would create mixing zones for cruise ship discharges, exactly what the 2006 initiative prohibited. There is no science with mixing zones; it is an engineered guess that pollutants will dissipate. The message to Rep. Peggy Wilson is twofold:
- No mixing zones for cruise ships. We expect all cruise ships that discharge do so under Ak Water Quality Standards. All harmful substances to marine life, such as ammonia & copper, must be addressed and eliminated, not “mixed” with state waters. There is no testing of mixing zones by DEC or the cruise ships.
- Better solutions than mixing zones exist: discharge in outside federal waters, beyond 12 miles, or discharge into the Juneau wastewater treatment plant. Juneau provides this service NOW to Princess Cruises, and will accept more. A third, obvious choice is clean up the ships and discharge legally, under state DEC permits.
Rep. Peggy Wilson needs a short message from concerned Alaskans on HB 134: No mixing zones in state waters for cruise ships. There are far better solutions.
Rep_Peggy_Wilson@legis.state.ak.us 465-3824, Juneau office number HB 134 bill is up this week. Please call or e-mail Rep. Wilson with your message.
Salty
2009-03-14 18:11:18
Here is the Alaska Longline Fisherman's Association Comment on HB 134. Maybe someone can post the ATA comment.
Dear Peggy,
I am extremely disappointed in your position and in your response to my email regarding HB 134. Please know that the commercial fishing industry is EXTREMELY concerned about this legislation and that we will be widely publicizing our concern and the assistance we can expect from our State Representatives.
In response to your email, I would provide the following facts:
1 RCI ships went to outside waters this past season and there is NO DATA to suggest it cost the towns anything in revenue. Their threat of leaving Alaska ports etc., is simply another bluff, ala their threats during the initiative battle. They make a major share of their money in our ports, from shopping and tours, and they aren't going to jettison that income like so much wastewater.
2 The technologies DO exist. DEC's recent draft feasibility report says so, and at the recent DEC sponsored tech conference numerous vendors and scientists stood up and said they can do it if they are asked. The technologies haven't been put on ships because no one has ever asked to have them designed for ships until now. They told us the same thing about the fecal issue 8 years ago and within a year they were putting AWTS on the ships that do a great job removing particle-based pollutants. The remaining pollutants of concern (metals, ammonia) are dissolved in the wastestream and need to be removed by other means.
3 Pitting the environment against the economy is a false dichotomy - let me be more clear - it's disingenuous at best. Without a healthy marine environment in Alaska there is no fishing economy.
4 It is true that in some cases the cruise ships are actually doing a better job than the municipalities. That is no reason to lower the bar for the cruisers, especially when we can improve the systems on shore and the cruisers can use them if they don't want to put new machines on the ships. That would allow munis to improve their performance as well and cost the cruisers nothing. Everybody wins.
5 The BIG difference between the municipality situation and the cruisers is that the cruisers are mobile. No one knows where they will be dumping, how many will be dumping in the same place, or whether a fishing set is going into the water minutes after a cruise ship went by at a tide change when there was little or no water exchange. Mobile mixing zones can't be monitored or controlled. MZ aren't science - they are a risk analysis. The "science" is the WQS, and that's what we want them to meet.
6 Finally: fish farms could start running ads showing an Alaska gillnetter or longliner pulling in a set next to a cruise ship with a caption about cruise ship discharges and the change in our law, juxtaposed with a photo of a "pristene" fish farm photo in BC or Chile. The fleet is marketing purity - our competitors could have a field day with the imagery regardless of the real world comparison. The picture would say a thousand words...
We will be talking about this issue at our ALFA meeting on Monday. Please let me know if your position changes so I can provide that information to ALFA's membership.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Linda Behnken
Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association
Salty
2009-03-14 18:14:52
Dear Representative Wilson,
I have met with you and visited with you several times over the years. I have always been impressed with your friendliness and willingness to listen.
I am an active fisherman in SE Alaska with a long record of fisheries and marine conservation. I read the following comment you sent to a friend of mine. I was born in Wrangell, lived many years in Petersburg, and settled in Sitka in 1976. I am familiar with the waters of SE Alaska as I have trolled from Dixon Entrance to the Fairweather grounds since 1950.
I am also familiar with the cruise ship industry pollution as I have run into their garbage offshore and their waste water streams many times over the years. I can not began to communicate how disappointing your comments are on this issue. Did the cruise ship industry write them for you? Have you checked how the voters of your district voted on this issue? Is there any evidence that you have ever voted to protect our natural resources in a divisive issue in your district? If so, please inform me of them so I can better appreciate your awareness.
District 2 is an Alaskan legislative district more dependent on healthy marine waters, and more impacted by the cruise ship industry than any other in Alaska. Yet two of your communities, Wrangell and Petersburg, don't even get the large cruise ships. Sitka, the community in your district which does get the large cruise ships voted overwhelmingly for this initiative if I remember correctly. Your district depends on the public perception of our seafood coming from the "pristine cold waters of Alaska". Petersburg, Sitka, and Wrangell are harvesting and processing salmon, herring, groundfish, and shellfish that are all affected by the toxic discharges from the cruise ships.
It is a slap in the face to the fishermen in your district that you are sponsoring this bill instead of leading the fight against it. Please reply that you have reconsidered your position.
Sincerely,
Eric W Jordan
Salty
2009-03-14 18:41:21
Here is Representative Wilson's reply to one of our friends comments that precipitated the above comments from Eric and ALFA. It would be great if some of you could also write your Legislator and make comments along the lines of those by Chip Toma and ALFA.
This is a big issue because in addition to the Cruise ship industry spending millions trying to defeat this initiative they are spending lots of time and money trying to influence our Alaska Legislature to overturn the will of the Alaska electorate.
Several years ago I heard the lobbyist for UFA tell the UFA board that Alaska fishermen needed to rethink their positions on lots of natural resource issues and instead of supporting Democrats and working in alliance with conservationists we needed "to make our bed with development interests and Republicans". I couldn't have disagreed more but we lost those battles as trawl interests joined UFA, and they endorsed Frank Murkowski over Fran Ulmer, Sarah Palin over Tony Knowles, and generally belly upped to the Republican and Chamber of Commerce interests in Alaska.
We are starting to reap the crop of that decision. No SE fisherman on the NPFMC, an inexperienced Board of Fisheries, the pending loss of our Marine Steward Council certification of sustainability on our salmon, a 15% loss of Chinook through the US Canada treaty process, re-allocation of rebuilt Taku and Stikine Chinook to sport and gillnet interests, Governor support for Pebble Mine, and a Legislature taking the first legal chance they get to overturn the vote of the people and support the Cruise Ship Industry over the health of our SE fisheries.
Time for you to weigh in.
representative_peggy_wilson@legis.state.ak.us
Thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to contact me with your concerns about HB 134.
I am co-sponsoring HB 134 because I believe passing it would positively impact the economies of Alaska’s costal towns that depend on cruise ship dollars to sustain the summer tourism industry.
I am aware of the delicate balance that must be struck between using our natural resources and protecting them for the future. This is a constant work in progress. I believe without HB 134 the balance will be swung in a direction that will hurt Alaskans more than it will protect Alaska.
As you are aware, the issue is the language “point of discharge” in reference to where water quality samples are taken. Unfortunately there is a simple fact that most influences this bill: currently there is no technology available that would allow cruise ships to comply with existing statutes.
If HB 134 is not passed, cruise ship companies have indicated they will not risk infractions. Instead their ships will leave the inside passage in order to dump in less controlled waters. This would reduce their time in port resulting in fewer dollars flowing into our seaside communities. It may also force cruise ship companies to completely pull schedules to Alaska. In the current economic downturn, implementing stricter regulations on an already struggling industry will force the cruise ship companies to re-evaluate the cost effectiveness of operating in our state’s waters.
This is not to say I value the economy at the expense of the environment. The Department of Environmental Conservation will continue to monitor the improvement of wastewater treatment technology, and as it becomes available we will expect them to require its installation.
There have been some proposals brought forth that would make cruise ships discharge their waste into land based municipal treatment plants. But requirements for cruise ship discharge is already more strict than those for municipal treatment plants. As the water discharged from cruise ships is already held to a higher standard than municipal waste water system, this proposal would not actually improve the water quality that is discharged into the ocean, and thus, would not bring us closer to our goal of keeping Alaska’s waters clean.
I appreciate your concern for Alaska’s pristine nature, and I encourage you to continue to contact me with your thoughts on these important issues facing the state.
Regards,
Peggy
Salty
2009-03-14 19:26:28
Here is the latest on HB 134. Following is Chip Toma's letter on the "compromise language" and the committee substitute.
Jerry – I was provided a copy of the Rep. Harris’ March 11 letter to the Governor today, re HB 134. Despite Mr. Harris’ claim of ‘difficult decisions’ to come, the meetings today with the Seattle cruise reps of Royal Caribbean (RCL) and Kent Dawson produced one lasting impression; in a very few years, this whole discharge brouhaha goes away with bigger ships. Cruise lines are all upgrading to fully ‘green,’ thus capable of receiving state discharge permits, and ships are increasingly capable of holding all grey and black wastewater until reaching the federal 12 mile limit at trip’s end. Even the basic, good reasons for upgrading the Juneau treatment plant are now reduced, because all the problem ships will soon be gone.
Attached is an updated, proposed HB 134, which gives DEC the authority to waive enforcement of the current standards at the point of discharge, provided the industry is making diligent efforts to meet Alaska’s Water Quality Standards. This is a perfect compromise that will solve any & all problems in a few short years. This draft 134 was sent after the meeting today to those below, including Mr. Dawson. It was also personally discussed with Reps. Harris & Seaton this afternoon. CBall is Charlie Ball, the VP of Princess in Seattle, who requested the RCL folks attend, and Mr. Dawson. It is obvious that this draft has addressed and distilled cruise ship concerns down to a simple waiver and emergency relief, which is proper under the future circumstances discussed today. Thanks for looking at this and remaining engaged. The Resources committee meets Monday at 1pm. Chip Thoma
Gentlemen – attached is the most recent HB 134 proposal # 3, drafted after the meeting today between Joe Geldhof, two RCL reps and Kent Dawson, Princess lobbyist. This language appears to satisfy the basic need for more time, and avoids all future mixing zones. The cruise reps candidly said that the newer ships to Alaska will be bigger, greener, and have the holding capacity to discharge in federal waters, whenever necessary. We are close to solving everyone’s concerns. Chip Thoma
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 134 (Resources)
IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
TWENTY-SIXTH LEGILSATURE - FIRST SESSION
BY THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Introduced:
Referred:
A BILL
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED
“An Act relating to the terms and conditions of large commercial passenger vessel permits for the discharge of wastewater and treatment of wastewater; and providing for an effect date.”
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
* Section 1. AS 46.03 is amended by adding a new section to read:
Sec. 46.03.464. Limited Waiver. (a) Notwithstanding AS 46.03.462 (b) (1), the Department of Environmental Conservation may provide a limited waiver effective April 1, 2010, and continue such waiver on year-to-year basis for a period of three additional years, from the point of discharge requirement imposed under that paragraph for a discharge of treated wastewater from a commercial passenger vessel, provided that
(1) the commissioner certifies that one or more municipalities in Alaska are working cooperatively with the cruise ship industry and the public for the purpose of designing, financing and constructing a shore-based wastewater treatment facility capable of being used by large commercial passenger vessels; or
(2) the commissioner certifies that the operator of a large passenger vessel using the marine waters of Alaska is working diligently towards installation of a ship-based waste treatment facility with significant potential of meeting Alaska’s water quality standards at the point of discharge; and
(3) any large commercial passenger vessel that discharges waste into the waters of Alaska with a limited waiver maintains and uses an advanced wastewater treatment facility that protects marine waters to the extent practicable.
(b) In this section, “shore-based wastewater facility” means a wastewater treatment facility located in a community in which commercial passenger vessels load or unload passengers that
(1) do not violate any applicable effluent limits or standards under state or federal law, including Alaska Water Quality Standards; and
(2) is capable of receiving discharges of treated wastewater from commercial passenger vessels; and
(3) to the extent practicable, removes ammonia and metals from the wastewater by means of commercially available and reasonably affordable treatment.
* Section 2. AS 46.03.462 (b) is amended by adding a new provision to read
(7) Notwithstanding AS 46.03.462, on April 1, 2014, on an emergency basis, large commercial passenger vessels may discharge treated wastewater into the marine waters of Alaska in circumstances permitted by the department, provided that
(A) the master of a large commercial passenger vessel certifies that no authorized shore-based wastewater facility or other approved ship-based waste treatment facility that would allow a vessel to meet Alaska’s water quality standards at the point of discharge is available for use during the voyage in Alaska;
(B) the vessel has a properly installed and operating advanced wastewater treatment facility approved for use by the department;
(C) the discharge takes place while
(i) the vessel is operating in excess of 6 knots; and
(ii) the vessel is at least 1 mile from shore; and
(iii) the discharge takes place in marine waters approved as suitable for emergency discharge by the department following consultation with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, the United States Coast Guard, the National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration and the public.
* Section 3. This Act takes effect immediately under AS 01.10.070(c).
yak2you2
2009-03-14 19:58:37
Salty,
I've made it abundantly clear in the past that I am no environmentalist, and I generally lean towards welcoming various enterprises into the far reaches of Alaska where there is no economy to speak of, or very little. Sadly,given the current economic status many communities are not in a position to say no to just about anything.
However, I agree with your thoughts about the waste water bill. I have a real attitude towards the cruise ship industry, here's why; They have no respect at all for the people who's state they're doing business in. After spending 6 years on the Yakutat borough assembly, arm wrestling these guys over various issues pertaining to their 200 plus visits to Yakutat bay to view the Hubbard glacier, I'd have to say that I never have seen a bigger bunch of bullys in my life.
You wouldn't go as a guest into someone's house an expect to be able piss where ever you please would you? Why is this such a hard concept for these folks to understand?
We would ask them not to drive into certain places, they would ignore us. we would ask them to slow down in certain places so they wouldn't run over things, like whales, they'd ignore that too. They had the hardest time understanding why a town of 600 felt impacted by the visitation of some 450,000 to our little bay, or why we felt entitled to have any say in how they did things.
I take exception to the way rep. Wilson talks a circle around the cruise industry having to bring their waste to a shore side facility, by saying," the cruiseships' waste is cleaner than the shoreside facilities". Notice she didn't bother to evaluate any of these kinds of staggering numbers into the equation. Yakutat-600, cruiseships-450-000. it's like adding a city the size of Portland, Oregon to our bay.
It would be interesting to do a study of how much in the way campaign contributions our legislators are bringing in from the fire sale of our state to the cruise industry.
Salty
2009-03-14 21:26:05
Yak,
I think Al Kookesh is the State Senator from Yakutat and Bill Thomas is your house member. Send them an e-mail stating your position on this bill. It looks like the compromise outlined above by Toma in the CS will work.
They need to hear from an articulate fisherman like yourself.
Hi All:
You may have heard that the House passed a compromise bill on cruise ship discharge. I will attach the letter just sent to the Senate Resources Committee on this new version.
At issue is that the House allowed for mixing zones while they further study the issue and industry compliance. There is a date for the study and report to legislature, but nothing sunsetting the mixing zones. As you will see in the letter, we have asked the Senate to establish a sunset and show their intent to implement the law that was voted in by the people through voter initiative.
It's one thing to allow industry adequate time to modify their vessels to comply with this rather strict standard - and we can support that - but it's quite another to inadvertantly provide a loophole that gets around a clear directive from Alaskans calling for the cruise ship industry meet specific water quality standards.
I'm hoping the lack of sunset on marine mixing zones was an oversight and will be an easy correction in the Senate with the blessings of the House. That said, your legislator could probably use a call or email from you if this issue is on your list of important things. You can find the bill (search for HB 134), committee hear schedules, video feed, and contact information for your legislators here: http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/media/media.php
Dale, ATA
Salty
2009-04-10 05:02:40
Dale,
What a wonderful letter. It is so good to have you writing these communications for us. Will contact my legislators tomorrow.
Salty
2009-04-10 16:19:45
Alaska Trollers reading this site. It is time to weigh in with your Senator on this issue. Dale has written an excellent letter to use as a model and this editorial spells the issue out real clearly.
Senator Kookesh and Stedman, our only two SE State Senators since Governor Palin is jerking the Democrats around with the appointment of Senator Elton's successor. Let them know how you feel today.
Eric Jordan
<Senator_Albert_Kookesh@legis.state.ak.us>,
"Bert Stedman" <Senator_Bert_Stedman@legis.state.ak.us>,
Anchorage Daily News
Published: April 7th, 2009 05:57 PM
Last Modified: April 7th, 2009 05:57 PM
Cruise rules
Keep it simple, senators
The cruise ship discharge bill passed by the House last week has a major flaw.
There's no deadline.
House Bill 134S gives the cruise industry more time to meet the strict standards voters demanded in approving a 2006 ballot initiative, but the measure has no guarantee cruise ships will ever have to meet those standards.
The bill requires interim and final reports (2012 and 2014) on the ability of the cruise lines to meet the pollution standards that voters approved. It creates an 11-member science advisory panel to help make those reports.
Members won't just look at technical and scientific questions; they'll also consider economic feasibility of tighter pollution controls.
Instead of directly killing the tougher standards voters demanded, the bill calls for more study. That's a classic a diversionary tactic, which in this case could spare the cruise industry from having to meet the new rules.
The state Department of Environmental Conservation has concluded in a draft report that technology exists to allow cruise ships to meet strict, point-of-discharge pollution standards at reasonable costs.
Applying that technology will take time. The cruise lines should have that time. But not more than that time.
The Senate should amend the House bill to impose a deadline.
BOTTOM LINE: Cruise wastewater bill needs a deadline -- for compliance, not just reports.
Salty
2009-04-10 16:51:48
Here is the letter I just sent.
Dear Senator Kookesh and Stedman,
I am writing with regard to CS HB 134, which seeks to provide additional time for the cruise ship industry to secure and install new technology to address point of discharge water quality standards. There is a flaw in this bill. There is no deadline for Cruise ship compliance. You need to correct this flaw. I went and heard the Cruise Ship group representative speak to the Sitka Chamber of Commerce and have read more information on their water discharges than I ever thought I could digest. Their representatives attitude toward the Alaska public and our collective decision to protect our waters, our food, and our livelihoods borders on revolting to this lifelong Alaska fisherman. The Cruise ship industry's thinly veiled threats to punish Alaska for passing this initiative unless the legislature basically rescinds the vote of the Alaska people is beyond disappointing.
Put a deadline in the bill for their compliance. The information is that the technology is available, the initiative supporters have worked tirelessly to co-operate with the Cruise Ship Industry to find a workable solution. The legislation that passed the house is that solution if a realistic date for compliance is included.
SE Alaska produces the highest quality fishery products in the world. We get paid more for our wild salmon for example than anyone else (except for a few early Copper River Chinook) in the world. I personally direct market some of my salmon to some of the finest restaurants in the world. These people pay more for our Wild SE Alaska salmon because they are not just the best quality but because they are "pristine" in quality. The perception that you are compromising that quality in any way by compromising water quality standards approved by a vote of the Alaska electorate compromises those markets.
Unlike Governor Palin who has stated that her favorite Alaska meal is "Moose stew", my favorite foods are Alaska seafood. Just in the last month I have eaten King crab, King Salmon, sockeye salmon, halibut, blackcod, clams, shrimp, and other seafood from SE Alaska waters. My children and grandchildren are growing up eating this food. Do not in any way compromise the quality of these foods by allowing the Cruise Ship Industry and open ended ticket to pollute. Set a deadline for compliance.
I believe it is important for the Legislature to provide a clear process for evaluating and implementing Alaska's water quality standards as they relate to the cruise ship industry. I hope you will strengthen the bill to better reflect the will of the people, by adding a sunset to the mixing zone provision. The specific date could always be reconsidered after the study results are in and reported to the legislature.
Thank you for all the good work you do for all of us.
Sincerely,
Eric Jordan, Alaska fisherman