Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/02/2018 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB355 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 355 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 355-FIRE;FOREST LAND; CRIMES;FIRE PREVENTION
2:50:50 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 355, "An Act relating to the crime of criminally
negligent burning; relating to protection of and fire management
on forested land; relating to prohibited acts and penalties for
prohibited acts on forested land; and providing for an effective
date."
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to the hearing of 3/19/18 and noted that
the committee considered Amendments 1-3; Amendment 1 was adopted
and Amendments 2, and 3, failed to be adopted.
2:51:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the discussion on one of the
earlier amendments which was put to the side pending a legal
interpretation on the question of fire fighters serving as
police officers. He advised that Legislative Legal and Research
Services confirmed that this could potentially be an issue and
that no matter what the circumstances of (indisc.), that due to
an officer status as a police officer the requirement would
"kick in." He offered to share Legislative Legal and Research
Services memorandum with the committee.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised Representative Eastman that he was welcome
to share the memorandum with the committee, and asked whether
Representative Eastman was prepared to move Amendment 4.
2:52:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that when the committee left
off, he believed there was still open discussion on Amendment 2.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 2-
5.
2:53:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 30-
LS1382\J.5, Radford, 3/16/18, which read as follows:
Page 3, lines 7 - 9:
Delete all material and insert:
"(b) A person may not set fires or use burning
devices without a permit as prescribed by the
commissioner in regulation."
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
2:53:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN advised that Amendment 4 states, as
follows: "a person may not set fires or use burning devices
without a permit as prescribed by the commissioner in
regulation." He opined that that language matches the original
intent, it is reasonable, and makes sure the prohibition is not
overly broad, which was his main concern.
2:54:32 PM
CHRIS MAISCH, Director, Division of Forestry, Department of
Natural Resources, advised that the Department of Natural
Resources opposes Amendment 4 because it would curb the
department's existing authorities that are "very important for
us to have," rather than a broad definition because there are
many different reasons fires can be set that may not be covered
under "burning devices." For example, during timber harvest
activities fires can be set by a "hot saw," which is a big saw
on a piece of heavy equipment, that hit a rock, caused a spark,
and started a fire. He noted that it is not defined as a
burning device, but it set a fire, and other examples can
include ATV's with hot mufflers and dry grass, or a lawnmower in
the urban interface sparking rocks with its blades. This
amendment would limit the ability for people to report these
types of fires, he said.
2:55:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked that if Sec. 7 is violated, is the
person subject to criminal liability.
MR. MAISCH answered that it depends upon the circumstances, but
a person could potentially be cited if the event was viewed as a
negligent act under current law.
2:56:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered concern that where there is actual
criminal liability, the phrase, "or conduct other activities or
use land that increases fire danger without a permit," appears
to be somewhat broad. While she understands where Mr. Maisch is
going when citing his examples, she said that she would be more
comfortable if Mr. Maisch put those examples into Sec. 7.
Representative LeDoux related that before someone is guilty of a
crime, there actually should be something specific that says
what a person cannot do under the law.
MR. MAISCH answered that it would be difficult to anticipate all
of the potential reasons or uses of land that might cause a fire
because the types of issues that can occur might be quite
surprising. For example, he said, a compost pile started a fire
a few years ago, which was a first in Alaska, and it would be
basically impossible to anticipate the various causes and list
them. Simply because someone is charged, he added, does not
mean their due process rights are not in place to have a fair
and impartial hearing on a charge.
2:57:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed that a person may have procedural
safeguards after being charged, but there is nothing in place
that advises them as to exactly what they can and cannot do,
which bothers her, she commented.
MR. MAISCH replied that a lot of this is common-sense during
fire season as to what can and cannot take place, and the person
needs to think of their actions and the potential consequences
of their actions. He referred to the education piece of this
statute and the department is trying to educate the public as to
safe burning practices. The department's statutes and
regulations are structured toward that type of a safe burning
program and educating people to basically be fire-wise during
the fire season. Under AS 41.15.070, some specific examples are
listed regarding lighted tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, matches,
firecrackers, and other burning materials. He offered that
"other burning materials" is a fairly generic and open-ended
definition, but a lot of it is common sense.
2:59:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Mr. Maisch's testimony that
this is "already authority the department has," but in reviewing
Sec. 7, it read that Sec. 7 is added as a new subsection. He
noted that if the authority is already elsewhere, why is this
new subsection necessary.
MR. MAISCH answered that he would have to look at the subsection
ordering because he was unsure whether the subsection changed
due to previous changes to the section. This section does
currently exist, and subsection (b) is added to make clear the
general types of activities that can cause a situation wherein
the FPOs need a person to report a fire when it occurs. He
described that it is actually about reporting and public safety.
In the event a person starts a fire on their property by
accident and does not report the fire promptly, there can be
some pretty serious consequences for their neighbors which
includes, loss of homes and business infra-structure.
Unfortunately, that has taken place several times in Alaska and
it is all about reporting a fire when it starts.
3:00:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that the language being proposed is
"increases fire danger," and asked what that means. He
acknowledged that Mr. Maisch had offered examples of sparks and
so forth, where a person might actually be starting a fire, but
does "increases fire danger" mean that a fire is started, or
exactly what does it mean.
MR. MAISCH responded that "increasing fire danger" is simply an
action or activity during the wrong time, such as during a red
flag warning. He used the example that a timber harvest
operation will shut down because the danger is so high that it
is likely their activities could spark a fire, "increased fire
danger." He explained that it is the type of activity
undertaken. Another example is agricultural burning, wherein a
person wants to burn when it is safe to burn, and not when there
is an increased danger from burning.
3:01:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether Mr. Maisch would want to
put language in there as a sideboard or some type of limitation.
He related that the language now, "increases fire danger
whenever" even if it is -30 degrees and someone is moving snow
around on their property, or during red flag warnings, or it is
fire season.
MR. MAISCH answered that this provision is during the legal fire
season, April 1st through August 31st.
3:02:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked where that information is located,
and how is it known (indisc.) fire season.
MR. MAISCH answered that it actually mentions that without a
permit as prescribed by the regulation, and the permits are
required under AS 41.15.060.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that that did not answer his
question.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that Mr. Maisch had answered to the best of
his ability.
3:03:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to the language currently written
in the bill draft, and asked whether this is consistent with
what the commissioner can do now through their authority. He
referred to AS 41.15.050, which read as follows:
The period from April 1 to August 31, inclusive, of
each year is designated the fire season. The
commissioner may designate other periods as fire
season. The commissioner may proclaim an additional
period for all or any portion of the state when
weather or other conditions require action for the
protection of forested land. The commissioner may
also, during the fire season, prohibit, or allow only
by permit, the setting of fires, smoking, entry, or
other use on the land, when, in the judgment of the
commissioner, the activities would unduly increase the
fire danger.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to AS 41.15.060, which read as
follows:
The commissioner shall, by regulation, prescribe the
conditions of and the manner for obtaining a permit.
Failure to obtain the required permit, or violation of
a condition of the permit is a misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that he was trying to distinguish
how the language in the bill, and the two statutes differ.
MR. MAISCH explained that AS 41.15.050 sets the fire season and
the other conditions he previously referenced. It differs from
the proposed addition, in that that this subsection makes clear
that a person needs to report a fire, for whatever cause, when
it occurs. Subsection (b) makes clear that that is the case
under CSHB 355, and that a permit is required at the same time a
person undertakes any of those activities.
3:05:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that Mr. Maisch is asking the
committee to take a "whole lot on faith" as to how this will be
interpreted and applied by the state. He related that the
language before the committee does not put the limitations that
"any of us would find reasonable," as there is a requirement
that in order for a person to use their land in any manner that
might increase fire danger, they must obtain a permit. He
described it as unrealistic and excessive on the part of
government to require that of Alaskans, and it does not support
the purposes intended.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.
3:06:17 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Kopp, and
LeDoux voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 4.
Representatives Stutes, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 4 failed to be adopted by a vote of 3-
3.
3:06:56 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:06 p.m. to 3:08 p.m.
3:08:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that certain members had previous
appointments
[HB 355 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB355 ver J 3.14.18.PDF |
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/2/2018 7:00:00 PM |
HB 355 |
| HB355 Sponsor Statement 3.14.18.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/2/2018 7:00:00 PM |
HB 355 |
| HB355 Amendments #1-10 3.19.18.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/2/2018 7:00:00 PM |
HB 355 |
| HB355 Amendments #1-10 HJUD Votes 4.2.18.pdf |
HJUD 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 355 |