Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/25/1994 08:15 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 310 - STATE/PRIVATE/MUNI TIMBER OPERATION/SALE REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB 310(RES) as follows: Page 8, line 6, following "industry;": Delete "and" Insert "[AND]" Page 8, line 7, following "habitat": Insert new material to read: "; and (8) to the fullest extent practicable, harvested forest land shall be reforested, naturally or artificially, so as to result in a sustained yield of merchantable timber from that land; if artificial planting is required, silviculturally acceptable seedlings must first be available for planting at an economically fair price" Page 8, following line 7: Insert a new bill section to read: "*Sec. 5. AS 41.17.060 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (d) With respect to private forest land only, to the fullest extent practicable, harvested forest land shall be reforested, naturally or artificially.If artificial planting is required, silviculturally acceptable seedlings must first be available for planting at an economically fair price." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 8, following line 23: Insert a new bill section to read: "*Sec. 8. AS 41.17.060(b)(4) is repealed." Number 442 TOM BOUTIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FORESTRY, DNR, said this amendment will modify only the wording for sustained yield and reforestation on private land. He stated last summer, the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (SCLDF) wrote a brief which said DNR should be requiring private landowners to comply with a continuous even flow harvest on their private land. He felt the existing FPA does not require that and AS 41.17.060 says that private land complies with sustained yield, so long as it is reforested. However, private landowners were concerned upon reviewing the brief. Therefore, this amendment makes it even more clear that reforestation is required on private land, not an even flow harvest. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked what the definition of "economically fair price" is. MR. BOUTIN stated the definition is in existing law, except it says in the state. He said seedlings are purchased as needed. Reforestation is required by law and DNR buys seedlings at the market price. REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN wondered if Mr. Boutin had talked to anyone involved in the deliberations on the FPA to determine whether or not there was any discussion on the application of the sustained yield concept to private lands. MR. BOUTIN replied he has. He said the part of the law which the SCLDF used to represent an even flow should be required on state land came from 1978. He stated clearly sustained yield is reforestation and he cannot get some kind of an even flow requirement from that wording. He noted the accepted gossip at that time was the SCLDF had written the brief to help the attorney general in his negotiations with a corporation. Number 557 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated Section 8 repeals the (b)(4) of AS 41.17.060 and the new Section 4 takes out the "so as to result in a sustained yield of merchantable timber from the land;". He clarified private land only is being talked about. MR. BOUTIN said that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked why the private timber operators want this amendment. MR. BOUTIN said private landowners were nervous as a result of the SCLDF brief because the wording in existing law does not adequately define sustained yield, so as long as there is reforestation. He noted the state is under a different test with the definition of sustained yield under Title 41 and the stronger definition of sustained yield in Title 38. He felt in existing law, sustained yield is met on private land just by reforestation and that was understood until the brief. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked why this amendment is necessary in SB 310, which addresses forest management agreements (FMAs). MR. BOUTIN replied the amendment is not related in any way whatsoever and has no impact on state land. He said this amendment is a private land amendment and FMAs are a different method of sale for the sale of state timber. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt the FPA was negotiated under a consensus environment. He expressed concern that changes are being made to the FPA just because there is a convenient vehicle available to do so. He thought if changes are going to be made to the FPA, they should be introduced as a separate bill package. He opposed the amendment for that reason. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she could envision an extension of the amendment into the availability of timber under a FMA, particularly when collaboration between landowners and the amount of timber which could be included from a private landowner is included. Number 642 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND the AMENDMENT to CSSB 310(RES) as follows: Page 8, following line 7: Insert a new bill section to read: "*Sec. 5. AS 41.17.060 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (d) With respect to private forest land only, to the fullest extent practicable, harvested forest land shall be reforested, naturally or artificially so as to result in a continuing yield of merchantable yield from that land. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the idea is to leave the language as it is without the words "sustained yield" for private lands and leave it exactly as it is for state lands. The change will not undermine the concept of reforestation. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS OBJECTED. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said sustained yield is defined in existing law. He stated there has been an attempt to interpret sustained yield as not applying beyond reforestation to actual harvest limitations. He explained continuing yield means continued regeneration. He felt the main amendment goes beyond what is described because it takes the concept of reforestation and deletes it from the law. TAPE 94-65, SIDE B Number 000 MR. BOUTIN stated existing law provides that a private landowner with 50,000 acres can log those acres, as long as reforestation occurs naturally or artificially. Eighty years from now that private landowner could log those acres again. He said the concern brought forth by the SCLDF brief is that the private landowner would have to take the 50,000 acres, divide it by the 80 year rotation and log only 1/100th of it each year. He did not feel the law requires that, but he can understand the concern. MR. BOUTIN stated Representative Finkelstein's words "continuing yield" in the amendment to the amendment might also give a private landowner the same concern. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted continuing yield is not defined in law. RON WOLFE, CHIEF FORESTER, KLUKWAN FOREST PRODUCTS (KFP), expressed support of SB 310. He said in written and oral testimony, KFP has requested the amendment. He noted the amendment says "harvested forest land shall be reforested." Existing regulation provides a very specific standard with respect to the number of seedlings per acre, per region that must exist in a well distributed manner. The regulation also establishes a standard as to what is an acceptable seedling. KFP feels it is very clear that the land has to be reforested. KFP feels the reference to sustained yield is confusing and continual yield would be equally confusing. MR. WOLFE said the removal of sustained yield weakens what is viewed as a very specific standard in law. He stressed the threat of lawsuit is what generates KFP's concern. He stated his understanding of the FPA affords KFP, as a private landowner, certain protections against a third party lawsuit. The threat of litigation would most likely go against the DNR commissioner rather than the private landowner, but the concept of the litigation would be such a threat to private landowners that they would have to be involved to protect their interests. MR. WOLFE stated the amendment is more of a clerical matter, reducing some confusion. He added that he participated extensively in the FPA review and he did not recall any reference to a sustained yield concept being applied to specific parcels of private land. Number 068 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt "recurring yield" might be a better word and MODIFIED his AMENDMENT to the AMENDMENT to change the word "continual" to "recurring." REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he looked up continue, sustain, and recur in the dictionary and all of the definitions are very similar. He read the definitions of each. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted there is a definition of sustained yield in law. Legislative action was taken to change sustained yield to recurring, which ties to the concept in subsection (4) which is reforestation. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote on the amendment to the amendment. Voting in favor of the motion were REPRESENTATIVES DAVIES, CARNEY, and FINKELSTEIN. Voting against the motion were REPRESENTATIVES JAMES, HUDSON, BUNDE, MULDER, and WILLIAMS. The MOTION FAILED 5-3. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if the FPA was in fact negotiated in a consensus format over a period of time. MR. WOLFE replied over a period of time it was primarily consensus. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if there has been any instance where a private landowner has been sued under this section of the law. MR. WOLFE replied not to his knowledge. He said part of the FPA has a third party protection, meaning a private landowner cannot be sued. Number 150 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Wolfe's view on the effect of the words "fullest extent practicable" in Section (4). He felt when that type of phrase is used in law, it makes it difficult for someone to lose in court. MR. WOLFE responded if an area is going to be artificially replanted, there is an attempt to use seed which is from an acceptable source. He said a popular concept in forest management is using a seed which is of the same species and same geographic origin. He stated for spruce, seed crops are not on a regular basis. There is a periodicity of one in seven or one in five years where there is a bumper crop. He stressed the seed desirable is not always available. From a forester's perspective, if he is unable to get acceptable seed to grow seedlings, that would mean it is not practicable for him to be able to reforest. Mr. Wolfe said KFP has invested, wherever they have harvested, efforts in trying to collect seed. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES JAMES, CARNEY, MULDER, HUDSON, BUNDE, and WILLIAMS. Voting against the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES DAVIES and FINKELSTEIN. The MOTION PASSED 6-2. Number 188 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to RESCIND the committee's action in adopting the following amendment to CSSB 310(RES): Page 2, line 30: Delete "shall" Insert "may" REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN OBJECTED. He felt there was a persuasive case as to why this amendment was a good idea. He asked why the committee should change their action. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated after reviewing the amendment and visiting with the sponsor of SB 310, it was felt the amendment weakens the intent of the legislation. He said there is no requirement there has to be FMAs but the commissioner will at least have to look at a FMA by retaining the word "shall". He stressed if the committee is serious about the legislation and economic development and diversity, they should force the commissioner to look at the possibility of these agreements in the future. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES recalled there has been a huge amount of testimony about allowing a certain amount of discretion on the commissioner's part. He felt to force the commissioner to make a solicitation when in the commissioner's best judgment it would be a waste of the state's effort is inconsistent with the other debate on the bill. He described several instances in the future where there is no way possible that a FMA could be granted. He stated giving the commissioner discretion to offer a FMA in one part of the state and not necessarily in the other part of the state makes sense. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated the Division of Forestry is going to offer FMAs wherever it makes sense. With the interest in diversifying the economy, the division is going to offer FMAs whenever they can. He felt to force them to do that, when in their judgment it does not make sense, is a waste. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN agreed with Representative Davies. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the motion were REPRESENTATIVES BUNDE, MULDER, HUDSON, JAMES, and WILLIAMS. Voting against the motion were REPRESENTATIVES DAVIES, CARNEY, and FINKELSTEIN. The MOTION FAILED 5-3. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB 310(RES) as follows: Page 5, line 13: Delete "regarding" Insert "requiring" Page 5, lines 15-16: Delete "regarding compensation, if required by the department," Insert "requiring compensation" Page 5, line 23: Delete "regarding responsibilities" Insert "requiring the proposer to be responsible" Page 5, line 28: Delete "for" Insert "requiring" Page 6, lines 5-7: Delete all material and insert: "(N) provisions requiring the proposer to reforest, stabilize, monitor, and meet other residual obligations upon deactivation or termination; these provisions may include bonding;" RICK SOLIE, AIDE, SENATOR STEVE FRANK, said this amendment incorporates suggestions made by the former attorney general, Charles Cole, in a letter to the House Resources Committee. Mr. Cole suggested the language in the FMAs was permissive. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. Number 282 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB 310(RES) as follows: Page 4, line 7: Delete "proposed agreement" Insert "proposal" REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED. MR. SOLIE stated this amendment is also in response to Charles Cole's concerns that the bill was not clear on financial feasibility. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB 310(RES) as follows: Page 4, lines 10-13: Delete all material and insert new subsections (6) and (7) to read: (6) economic benefits and liabilities from the proposed agreement to the region in which the land that is to be covered by the agreement is located;" (7) economic benefits and liabilities to the State and to the state forest land under the proposed agreement;" REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said when the Division of Forestry is considering factors in evaluating proposals, not only will they consider the economic benefits but as provided with this amendment, consider the liabilities as well. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER OBJECTED. He felt the amendment is redundant as the financial feasibility is already being considered. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that argument would say get rid of subsections (6) and (7) completely. He said there are risks to the state involved and gave an example. He stated this amendment is a suggestion of Charles Cole. He pointed out the state has been sued before and had to settle for millions of dollars. Therefore, the liabilities the state might face should be considered. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt the financial feasibility is a much narrower factor because it addresses the agreement itself. Economic benefits and liabilities are much broader terms and apply to other considerations. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES FINKELSTEIN, DAVIES, and CARNEY. Voting against the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES HUDSON, MULDER, JAMES, BUNDE, and WILLIAMS. The MOTION FAILED 5-3. Number 369 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB 10(RES) as follows: Page 3, lines 10-11: Delete: "unless the evaluation under (d) indicates it is unlikely that the proposed agreement will be selected as a tentatively successful proposed agreement" Page 3, line 12: Delete "30" Insert "60" Delete "60" Insert "120 Page 5, line 1: After "government agencies" Insert "and hold public hearings" Page 5, line 5: After "Section," Insert "and determining that the tentatively proposed agreement is in the best interests of the State," Page 6, line 8: Delete "The" Insert "After soliciting public comment, holding public hearings, and determining that the proposed final agreement is in the best interests of the State, the" Page 7, line 5: After "shall" Insert "solicit public comment, hold public hearings," REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said this amendment increases the time period for public comment. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated the single issue which aroused the most concern about SB 310 was the perceived attack on the ability of the public to comment. He felt this amendment would help alleviate those concerns. MR. SOLIE expressed opposition to the amendment. It is felt the amendments made in the Senate Resources Committee, which added an additional public comment period to the one initially contained in the bill, will allow for sufficient public involvement. He said this amendment goes further than what is necessary to protect the public interest. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES CARNEY, DAVIES, and FINKELSTEIN. Voting against the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES JAMES, HUDSON, BUNDE, MULDER, and WILLIAMS. The MOTION FAILED 5-3. Number 399 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB 310(RES) as follows: Page 5, line 2, following "agreement.": Insert "If a tentatively successful proposed agreement includes land within a municipality, the commissioner shall submit the tentatively successful proposed agreement to the municipality to determine if the agreement is consistent with municipal land use plans. The municipality shall make a consistency determination within 60 days of receipt of the tentatively successful proposed agreement and, if the agreement is not consistent with municipal land use plans, specifically set forth the provisions of the agreement that are not consistent." Page 5, following line 8: Insert a new paragraph to read: "(2) must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with municipal land use plans if the agreement includes land within a municipality;" Renumber the following paragraph accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said this amendment requires FMAs to be consistent with municipal land use plans. He stated this is another issue which was brought forward in public testimony. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER OBJECTED REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed support for the amendment. He recently went through an extremely unnecessary set of objections to proposed actions in his area which resulted from the state taking action without consideration for local laws first. He felt this type of consistency check will smooth the process and keep the state from local hearings that get at odds with what the state action is. MR. SOLIE expressed opposition to the amendment. MR. BOUTIN expressed two concerns with the amendment. He felt sooner or later the land use plan process would become a referendum on the FMA and would be the overriding feature in consideration. Second, he said the Kenai Peninsula Borough has no timber sale program but recently by ordinance did require 300 foot buffer strips on streams on timber sales based on no scientific evidence. He expressed concern that a FMA might be constrained by some similar requirement. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated there is nothing which would prevent a municipality from putting a buffer strip in place anytime they wanted, regardless of this amendment. He said a municipality can restrict activities within its land. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES agreed and said municipalities have the ability to zone. He felt it makes more sense to have the state coordinating with municipalities rather than getting into positions where a state agency is suggesting one thing and the municipality is suggesting another. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES HUDSON, DAVIES, CARNEY, and FINKELSTEIN. Voting against the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES MULDER, JAMES, BUNDE, and WILLIAMS. The MOTION FAILED 4-4. Number 490 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB 310(RES) as follows: Page 4, line 31: After "agreement." Insert "The commissioner shall conduct a competitive bidding procedure in order to determine the highest qualified bidder for the proposed agreement; in addition to the bid price, the commissioner shall consider the value of the area for the long-term production of timber, the extent that local hire will be increased, the intent of the bidder to process a value added product within the State of Alaska, and the experience of the bidder in the forest products industry. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the amendment sets up a procedure that once a FMA proposal is submitted, bidding will not involve just the price, but also a variety of other considerations including the bidders intent to process within the state. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER OBJECTED. He asked the sponsor's representative to speak to the value of competitive bidding. He thought the value of local hire and value-added were included in amendments adopted previously. MR. SOLIE expressed opposition to the amendment. He said in-state processing language was adopted previously. He stated this amendment goes in a different direction. It is felt that a negotiated agreement with a FMA is the best way to achieve the in-state processing and local hire. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON felt there is considerable value in setting up intent language and he thought someone representing the state's interest was going to come back with that language. He said if the committee does not like the competitive bidding procedure, then the committee should consider adopting the second sentence of the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES felt this amendment, as written, would set the state up for a challenge on constitutionality. She did not think the state can enter into a competitive bidding process containing these stipulations. She said the value of the area for long-term production of timber is included in the economic and feasibility considerations. She stressed this amendment will make all FMAs unconstitutional. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a MOTION to AMEND the AMENDMENT to CSSB 310(RES) as follows: Delete "The commissioner shall conduct a competitive bidding procedure in order to determine the highest qualified bidder for the proposed agreement; in addition to the bid price, The amendment would then read: Page 4, line 31, after "agreement." insert: "The commissioner shall consider the value of the area for the long-term production of timber, the extent that local hire will be increased, the intent of the bidder to process a value-added product within the State of Alaska, and the experience of the bidder in the forest products industry." REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated this amendment to the amendment enhances the bill by setting up intent language but does not force the state to go into a competitive bidding process. MR. GATES expressed support to the amendment to the amendment. He said the intent language would help focus FMAs on items of long-standing interest to the state in terms of value-added production of the state's timber resources and in-state local hire. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said although he prefers the entire amendment, he will consider the amendment to the amendment as a friendly amendment. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER questioned whether this is the appropriate location in the bill for the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN MODIFIED his AMENDMENT to add: Location of the amendment is uncertain and is left to the bill drafter. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the amended amendment. Hearing none, the AMENDED AMENDMENT was ADOPTED. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB 310(RES) as follows: Page 7, line 4, after "(1)": Insert "The commissioner shall strictly enforce the provisions of the final agreement. The commissioner shall perform an annual review of the operator's performance under the agreement." REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated this amendment comes from his experience in watching the bigger projects which states have had problems with. He said one of the ways to avoid problems is to ensure there are strict enforcement provisions and annual reviews so the problems get addressed. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER OBJECTED. He felt the amendment was redundant because a similar amendment was defeated previously. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to AMEND the AMENDMENT to CSSB 310(RES) deleting the entire second sentence. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the amended amendment. Hearing none, the AMENDED AMENDMENT was ADOPTED. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB 310(RES) as follows: Page 5, line 13: Delete "regarding compensation from the proposer" Insert "requiring the proposer to compensate the state for full costs incurred" Page 5, lines 15-16: Delete all material and Insert "(D) provisions requiring the proposer to pay the state's cost of administering, monitoring, and enforcing the terms and conditions of the agreement and other requirements of state law;" Page 5, line 17: Delete "regarding responsibilities for" Insert "making the proposer responsible for all costs of" Page 5, line 22, following "agreement;": Insert "provisions under this paragraph must provide that the proposer shall pay fair market value for all material purchased from the state;" REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said there has been discussion about the costs the FMA operator should be responsible for. He stressed at a minimum, the costs to the state should be paid so the state cannot be accused of engaging in something which is actually losing money from the state. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER OBJECTED. He said total costs are very ill-defined. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN disagreed. He pointed out that later in the amendment those costs are outlined. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON felt this issue has been addressed by the adoption of amendment X39 and the last amendment. TAPE 94-66, SIDE A Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said this amendment goes a little further and says the state's full costs. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she has no problem with the second and fourth parts of the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to AMEND the AMENDMENT as follows: Delete: Page, 5, line 13: Delete "regarding compensation from the proposer" Insert "requiring the proposer to compensate the state for full costs incurred" Page 5, line 17: Delete "regarding responsibilities for" Insert "making the proposer responsible for all costs of" REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS OBJECTED. MR. SOLIE stated the sponsor opposes the amended amendment because there has been no review of it. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated the proposed amended amendment only accomplishes two things. It says for the materials purchased, the fair market value has to be paid and second, those direct costs which come from administering, monitoring, and enforcing the terms and conditions of the agreement... must be paid. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN WITHDREW his MOTION on the original amendment. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES DAVIES, FINKELSTEIN, HUDSON, and CARNEY. Voting against the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES MULDER, JAMES, BUNDE, and WILLIAMS. The MOTION FAILED 4-4. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB 310(RES) as follows: Page 1, line 4, through page 2, line 21: Delete all material Page 2, line 22: Delete "*Sec. 3." Insert "*Section 1." Page 7, line 18, through page 8, line 23: Delete all material. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated this amendment deletes the portions of the bill which do not relate to FMAs. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER OBJECTED. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES DAVIES, CARNEY, and FINKELSTEIN. Voting against the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES MULDER, BUNDE, JAMES, HUDSON, and WILLIAMS. The MOTION FAILED 5-3. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB 310(RES) as follows: Page 8, lines 8-15: Delete all material. Renumber the following bill section accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt this section has not received the attention it deserves. He did not think it is appropriate to change the purpose of state forests retroactively since there were discussions each time the state forests were established as to what their purpose was. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER OBJECTED. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed support for the amendment. He felt changing the state forest purposes is not necessary for FMAs. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES DAVIES, FINKELSTEIN, and CARNEY. Voting against the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES HUDSON, BUNDE, MULDER, JAMES, and WILLIAMS. The MOTION FAILED 5-3. Number 073 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to MOVE CSSB 310(RES), as amended, with accompanying fiscal notes, out of committee with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED. He stated he has another motion to offer. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER WITHDREW his MOTION. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to RESCIND the committee's action in failing to adopt amendment X35. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he has a series of petitions from around the state saying the amendment should be adopted. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER OBJECTED. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the motion were REPRESENTATIVES FINKELSTEIN, DAVIES, and CARNEY. Voting against the motion were REPRESENTATIVES BUNDE, MULDER, JAMES, HUDSON, and WILLIAMS. The MOTION FAILED 5-3. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to MOVE CSSB 310(RES), as amended, with accompanying fiscal notes, out of committee with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. REPRESENTATIVES FINKELSTEIN and DAVIES OBJECTED. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt there is a way to do FMAs and to get public and legislative support but with the time available, that support cannot occur. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the motion were REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, HUDSON, BUNDE, MULDER, and WILLIAMS. Voting against the motion were REPRESENTATIVES CARNEY, DAVIES, and FINKELSTEIN. The MOTION PASSED 5-3. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the House Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 10:20 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|