Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/08/2004 09:04 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 341
"An Act relating to the dive fishery management assessment."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken explained that this bill would affect the Dive
Fishery management assessment in that it would finalize a
compromise between Alaska shellfish growers and commercial
fishermen and would additionally address long-standing
controversies regarding the State's management of geoduck clams and
other shellfish stocks on aquatic farm sites. He noted that were
the Finance committee substitute, Version 23-LS1280\I, adopted by
the Committee, a title change would be required. In addition, he
noted that a Department of Revenue zero fiscal note accompanies the
bill.
Co-Chair Green moved to adopt the Version "I" committee substitute
as the working document.
There being no objection, the Version "I" committee substitute was
ADOPTED as the working document.
TIM BARRY, Staff to Representative Bill Williams, the bill's
sponsor, explained that this bill was introduced at the request of
the Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fisheries Association (SARDFA).
He noted that the original bill incorporated "fairly mild changes"
to existing statutes governing the manner in which SARDFA assesses
its dive fishermen, Southeast Alaska communities, and dive fishery
processor members. He explained that the Association, which is
funded by either a one, three, five, or seven percent tax assessed
on its members, works with the Department of Fish and Game and the
Department of Environmental Conservation to manage and develop the
dive fishery in Southeast Alaska. This bill, he recounted, would
allow the Association's tax mechanism to be expanded to include
two, four, or six percent assessments.
Mr. Barry stated that the bill was recently amended to address an
April 2004 State Supreme Court ruling that resulted in the
Department of Fish and Game issuing cease-harvesting orders to
several geoduck farmers. Consequently, he stated that the
Association, shellfish farmers, the Department of Law, the
Department of Fish and Game, the Governor's Office and others have
reached an agreement on statutory language that would allow the
shellfish farmers to continue to farm shellfish. He pointed out
that this language is included in the Version "I" committee
substitute before the Committee. He affirmed that this agreement,
which has the support of the aforementioned entities, would
institute a title change.
Senator Dyson recalled that as this dive fishery industry was being
developed, it asked the Legislature to adopt regulations, which
would allow the industry to levy sufficient tax assessments through
which to administer and supervise operations. He stated that he
"was charmed" by the fact that the industry was willing to pay for
this endeavor. In that vein, he asked whether this legislation
would negatively affect "the bottom line for the State."
Mr. Barry replied that this legislation would not affect the State
"in any way." Continuing, he stated that enabling SARDFA to assess
a two, four, or six-percent tax would allow the Association "to
more effectively pay their own way."
Senator Bunde stated that the bill has changed since he heard it in
the Senate Labor & Commerce Committee. Continuing, he asked for
further information regarding the standing stock language in the
bill; specifically how designating aquatic farm sites in areas
where no shellfish naturally exist would benefit the shellfish
farming industry, as he contested that were the site suitable for
the species, the shellfish would be naturally occurring there. He
also asked for further information regarding the grandfathering in
of current farms and the "common property" stock that existed on
the site before the farm began.
Mr. Barry voiced the understanding that the standing stock and
shellfish farmer issue has been a topic of discussion in excess of
five years. He stated that the agreement reflected in the Version
"I" committee substitute "would define what significant and
insignificant standing stock are." Furthermore, he stated that in
those cases in which a farmer has a site designated as having an
insignificant amount of standing stocks, the farmer could harvest
the insignificant standing stock and sell it to a processor. He
noted that the any proceeds generated by standing stock, beyond the
insignificant stock, would be remitted to the State.
JULIE DECKER, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Dive Fishery
Association, testified via teleconference from an offnet site and
informed the Committee that geoducks are able to grow in areas
where they are not currently present or do not naturally grow such
as shallow inter-tidal areas. However, she noted that it is unknown
as to whether they would grow as well in these areas as they would
in a natural habitat area. Therefore, she attested that, to attract
and encourage the growth of the "somewhat risky" shellfish farming
industry, it would behoove the State to make available natural
habitat sites, as they would provide natural feed and quicker
growth. She stated that the primary on-going issue in this industry
involves standing stock. She shared that the Alaska Court System
has ruled that areas with insignificant geoduck clams should be
available as aquatic farm sites, but that areas with significant
amounts of standing stock should be regarded as common fishery
sites. This issue, she disclosed has been heard by the Lower Court
and appealed to both the Superior and Supreme Court. She stated
that the Supreme Court has determined that State statutes do not
currently allow the Department of Fish and Game to designate any
amount of standing stock, significant or insignificant, to a
farmer. This legislation, she contended, supports the Lower Court
ruling that would change State Statute to allow farmers to harvest
an area with insignificant amounts of wild stock. She stated that
an agreement has been reached specifying that a harvest of 12,000
pounds or less would be regarded as insignificant wild stock. She
noted that the net proceeds of a harvest exceeding that poundage
would be remitted to the State. She reiterated that this issue has
been addressed for a long time and that the ability of the various
entities to reach this agreement was "quite an accomplishment."
Senator Bunde stated that this legislation involves "some
interesting common property issues." He asked whether Legislative
Legal Services has developed a position regarding this common
property stock issue.
Co-Chair Wilken understood that a Constitutional concern has
recently arisen regarding this legislation.
Mr. Barry explained that George Utermohle, Legislative Counsel,
Legislative Legal Services, has written a memorandum [copy on
file], dated May 4, 2004 to Representative Williams, indicating
that the agreement presented in this legislation would change State
statutes. Furthermore, he stated that while the recent Supreme
Court ruling specified that aquatic farmers should not continue to
harvest common stock, the Court did not address any Constitutional
issues. However, he allowed that Constitutional questions have
arisen during the years of dispute involving this issue, and that
the entities involved in the development of this agreement "are all
aware" that there may be some unresolved Constitutional issues."
Co-Chair Wilken asked that the memorandum be distributed to the
Members for review.
Mr. Barry concurred.
Senator Olson asked whether there has been any opposition to the
bill.
Mr. Barry replied in the negative.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that the bill would be HELD in Committee in
order to further clarify, with Legislative Legal Services, the
Constitutional issues being raised.
AT EASE 9:37 AM / 9:38 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|