Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
02/27/2008 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB370 | |
| HB257 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 370 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 257 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 257-AQUATIC FARMING & HATCHERIES 2:20:54 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 257, "An Act transferring duties relating to aquatic farming and hatchery operations from the Department of Fish and Game to the Department of Natural Resources, eliminating certain permit requirements applicable to aquatic farming and hatchery operations, and directing the Department of Natural Resources to administer and supervise promotional and marketing work for aquatic farm products; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 257(FSH)] 2:21:20 PM JOHN BITNEY, Staff to Representative John Harris, Alaska State Legislature, explained that HB 257 was changed substantially in the House Special Committee on Fisheries. The issue of aquatic farming has been discussed for a number of years as aquatic farmers and agencies have tried to get this industry up and running, he said. Initially, the bill was an effort to transfer management functions from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) because it was felt that DNR would be better able to manage this function. This was opposed by the administration, and in its stead ADF&G has taken some budgetary measures to beef up its management functions and oversight. The sponsor is hoping that those efforts will be successful and help this industry move forward. MR. BITNEY said the bill was pared down to three sections and the intent of these sections is to qualify these products for the Alaska Grown program that is managed by the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Agriculture. Since these products are grown through mariculture - agriculture under the water - they would not fall under the purview of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute which focuses on wild caught seafood. It is hoped that the Alaska Grown program will help in the promotion and marketing of these products. 2:25:41 PM MR. BITNEY pointed out that ADF&G's 2/19/08 fiscal note, prepared by Cynthia Pringham, and DNR's 2/19/08 fiscal note, prepared by the commissioner's, speak to the transfer of positions that were in the original bill. Since the sponsor does not want to transfer those functions and the bill no longer transfers those functions, the hope is that those notes can be zero. There is a fiscal note from the Division of Agriculture, he said, and the division would like to address the committee in this regard. If the committee chooses to adopt the Division of Agriculture's fiscal note, the bill will need a referral to the House Finance Committee. 2:27:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether the sponsor is wanting to delete lines 2-3 on page 2. MR. BITNEY said the sponsor supports leaving the bill intact as it is. The sponsor is asking to change the fiscal notes to zero because the bill no longer transfers functions between agencies. As currently written, CSHB 257(FSH) would simply qualify mariculture products for the Alaska Grown program. In further response to Representative Wilson, Mr. Bitney confirmed that mariculture would not be transferred to the Department of Natural Resources, only the promotion and marketing of aquatic farm products under the Alaska Grown logo. 2:29:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired why product marketing would not fall under the Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development. MR. BITNEY replied the Alaska Grown promotional marketing program is within the Division of Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources, and has been since he can remember. 2:30:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether there was another time and bill in which aquatic farming was transferred from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game to the Division of Agriculture. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that was the original HB 257 heard in the House Special Committee on Fisheries. The transfer language was taken out and only the Alaska Grown label designation remains for farmed seafood products. 2:30:58 PM RODGER PAINTER, President, Alaskan Shellfish Growers Association, testified that the bill is necessary because statute modifications several years ago inadvertently changed the definition of products that DNR could include under the Alaska Grown program. There were already a dozen [mariculture] farms under the program using the label when DNR discovered it really did not have the authority to promote the products. The department grandfathered those farms in and allowed them to continue using the label, but DNR has prevented additional farms from coming under the program. So, this is really a technical amendment to give back the authority to DNR. 2:32:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether Mr. Painter thinks the Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development would be a more appropriate department for marketing the Alaska Grown label. MR. PAINTER answered that DNR is responsible for the production of agricultural products until they reach the marketplace. If there is a disease problem on the farms, DNR is responsible for it. Other agencies come into play after the products reach the marketplace. The Division of Agriculture is responsible for ensuring that the production is taking place in Alaska and the products are being produced in a healthy and safe manner. 2:34:03 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON closed public testimony after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify. The committee took an at-ease from 2:34 p.m. to 2:37 p.m. 2:37:27 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON requested a defense of the fiscal note. AMY PETTIT, Development Specialist, Inspection/Marketing Services, Division of Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources, stated that, due to staff shortages, the Division of Agriculture cannot serve the needs of this group without additional resources. Most of these farms are in remote areas that the division is not currently going to for other reasons. To verify that the farms qualify for the Alaska Grown program and that they meet the requirements of the program, the division needs to conduct site visits like it does for other members of the Alaska Grown program. 2:38:33 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked how often the division would go to a farm in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley to inspect its potato crop. MS. PETTIT responded that when new producers apply to the Alaska Grown program, the division takes their word that they are complying for the first year. Within a year of the application the division will try to inspect and confirm that a producer is producing Alaska grown products and only using the Alaska Grown label on Alaska grown products that the producer is selling. The division has U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspectors on staff that do inspections in stores and on the farms for the division. 2:39:25 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired why the inspectors could not inspect the mariculture farms when they visit the other markets. MS. PETTIT replied the division could more fully meet the needs of this industry if it had additional resources. As mentioned by Mr. Painter, at least 12 farms as well as an association had joined the program before, but the division did very little outreach or education with them and little promotion through grants because of discovering that the division did not have that authority. If the division had the resources, there are 40-50 producers just within Mr. Painter's association that could be contacted to join the program. Most of these producers are in remote locations that the division is not already visiting because there is no other agricultural production in that area. 2:40:23 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked whether $5000 would be enough for such travel. MS. PETTIT answered she is unsure because her supervisor, Doug Warner, is the person who prepared the fiscal note. 2:40:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON commented that this is his question as well, given there are two positions in the fiscal note and 40-50 farms to inspect. He said he had interpreted this to be a labeling program rather than an inspection program. 2:41:32 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired how many inspectors are on staff now. MS. PETTIT stated the division has two USDA inspectors, but it is not their job to inspect for the Alaska Grown program. That is her responsibility as the Development Specialist and she makes sure that applicants actually qualify for the Alaska Grown program. However, when the division's USDA inspectors are already on site at a farm or in the grocery store, they also look at Alaska Grown products to make sure that the logo is only being used with qualified products. In further response to Co- Chair Johnson, Ms. Pettit said both she and the division's marketing assistant conduct farm visits, visit the farmers who are selling at farmer's markets, and visit stores to make sure that the logo is being used only on those qualified products that the division has approved the farmers for. 2:42:30 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked how many producers are qualified for the label. MS. PETTIT replied she just signed a letter today for authorized user number 360. 2:42:41 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON commented that two employees are currently handling 360 producers and now the request is for one and one- half employees to handle 40 producers. MS. PETTIT said that is a simplified way of looking at it. Those 360 have come into the program over the past 20 years and inspections are not conducted every single year. "We make sure people are staying within compliance of the logo restrictions as we're there - if we are already on a trip down to the peninsula we stop by and see as many Alaska Grown authorized users as we can while we go." 2:43:12 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked why the fiscal note, which would carry into 2014, does not get any cheaper over the years. MS. PETTIT reiterated she did not prepare the fiscal note so could not speak to it. 2:43:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH inquired whether the inspections are required by statute or regulation. MS. PETTIT said the division was in the final stages of developing regulations for the Alaska Grown program when it stopped moving them forward due to the Alaska Grown lawsuit. In further response to Representative Fairclough, Ms. Pettit confirmed that it is not in statute and it is not yet in regulations. 2:44:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH surmised the statute does not require a mandatory visit. How is the division measuring the fiscal note in the timeframe needed for getting there and to have those in perpetuity as state employees, she asked. MS. PETTIT said the division thinks the lawsuit is coming to a close at which time it will move forward with the regulations. The division would like to include the mariculture industry in those regulations and in its Alaska Grown promotion program. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH presumed it is the division's recommendation to verify Alaska Grown in a future regulation and that is what is being based on this current fiscal note. MS. PETTIT responded yes, if she understands the question. 2:46:21 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked whether these positions were included in the governor's request for budget items. MS. PETTIT replied she does not know. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON noted that someone in the audience was vehemently shaking his or her head no. He expressed his concern about inflating the budget through fiscal notes and growing positions. 2:46:55 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO understood the lawsuit was between the farmers and the state and the state won the right and obligation to protect the Alaska Grown label. This is what it will cost for the state to protect the label - inspections on all the products that fall under the auspices of the Alaska Grown label. He said it cannot be done for nothing and he is guessing that the fiscal note is because this is what the state wants to do. MS. PETTIT agreed. The judge ruled in the state's favor on all counts in the lawsuit, she said, and the state is now waiting to see what the damage level will be. Alaska Grown is a 20-year- old program that has been very successful when measured against programs in the other states. It does cost money to maintain this program. If another industry is added to the program it will cost money to conduct inspections, develop guidelines for the industry, and promote that industry at an equal measure of the other industries. 2:48:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH accepted Co-Chair Gatto's statement about wanting to protect the Alaska Grown label. She said she is certain that if the governor thought the [360] current producers could not be managed inside the present budget the governor would have added something into her new budget or offered a supplemental. This fiscal note is attached specifically for having to visit the shellfish farms. If the division only has to visit a farm once to verify, then what is the issue and why does the fiscal note carry into [2014], asked Representative Fairclough. She said she is not trying to strike the fiscal note, just trying to understand why the numbers and the [staff] positions go forward instead of just a one time visit. 2:50:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired whether there is a buy-in or fee associated with becoming a part of the Alaska Grown program. MS. PETTIT answered no, at this time it is a no-cost, no-fee program for the producers. 2:50:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked whether shellfish growers are currently required to have periodic tests for quality control and paralytic shellfish poisoning. MS. PETTIT said she is uncertain about the current tests and inspections for that industry. MR. PAINTER stated that his association's products are tested for paralytic shellfish poisoning by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The growing/harvesting waters are tested twice a year for cleanliness by DEC. Shellfish growers are subject to food safety rules under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that are locally administered by DEC. All movements of shellfish products must be approved by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game. The Department of Natural Resources has a person overseeing the leases who annually visits the farms. He said he thinks there are many ways of verifying that these products are Alaska grown through onsite verification by the DNR representative and Division of Mining, Land and Water, and a solid paper trail could be created. This could be done at very little cost and travel to the [Division of Agriculture], he said. 2:53:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES commented that the Alaska Grown label clearly provides a marketing advantage and therefore has value. The jeopardy of losing that advantage by falsifying documents would encourage producers to stay within the parameters. He said it appears to him that the [mariculture] producers are already buried in paperwork with all the inspections that occur now and adding more paperwork and inspections seems redundant. He recommended the committee deal with just the bill and let the House Finance Committee deal with the fiscal note. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON agreed with letting the House Finance Committee deal with it. 2:55:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that the 12 mariculture producers currently using the Alaska Grown label are already doing their own marketing. There was testimony that there would be promotional marketing of the farms by the state; however, he said he does not believe that is what is being requested here. What is being requested is to be able to use the Alaska Grown label and the producers will do their own marketing. He urged that the fiscal note address this issue as the bill goes forward. REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH inquired whether there would be more impact if the committee struck the position on the fiscal note rather than making a recommendation. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said the bill might not go to the House Finance Committee if the fiscal note is zeroed out. He said he will be conversing with the co-chairs of that committee regarding the aforementioned concerns. 2:57:48 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO moved to report CSHB 257(FSH) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes and forthcoming fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected and suggested that committee recommendations be added to the motion. CO-CHAIR GATTO moved to report CSHB 257(FSH) out of committee with individual and committee recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes and forthcoming fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON withdrew her objection. There being no further objection, CSHB 257(FSH) was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|