Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
04/05/2006 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB37 | |
| HB218 | |
| HB380 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 380 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CSHB 37(FIN) AM-PUBLIC ACCESS TO FISHING STREAMS
CHAIR THOMAS WAGONER announced CSHB 37(FIN) AM to be up for
consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, sponsor of HB 37, explained that the
bill asks the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to create a
list of areas where public access to fishing streams might be
lost when the land is developed. He mentioned Montana Creek in
the Mat-Su Valley, the Anchor River on the Kenai, and Deep Creek
on the Kenai as examples and said people have been fishing in
these areas for years and nobody has cared that the access is
across private land. That might not be the case in the future so
HB 37 is a proactive step to negotiate for continued public
access before the lands are developed and become too expensive
to return to the public domain.
3:40:27 PM
SENATOR DYSON asked if DNR or the administration approve of the
bill.
DICK MYLIUS, Director, Division of Mining, Land, and Water,
Department of Natural Resources, replied DNR believes it is a
good idea to identify access points, but it recognizes that
there is an associated cost. The bill simply sets up a process
whereby the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) would
identify where access is needed and DNR would determine the
options and costs for the acquisitions. It would then be up to
the legislature to fund the acquisitions or not.
SENATOR STEDMAN expressed concern with the long-term effects of
creating a list because the language in the bill is a lot more
aggressive than what is implied.
CHAIR WAGONER noted the proposed amendments that change the
language.
3:42:57 PM
SENATOR BEN STEVENS asked where the bill says that the list
comes back to the legislature for authorization.
MR. MYLIUS replied it is on page 3, line 10.
CHAIR WAGONER noted that the bill says that before February of
each year the commissioner of fish and game shall submit a plan
to acquire public access to fish and wildlife, but it doesn't
say it goes back to the legislature.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS asked Mr. Mylius if that is where he is
saying the plan has to go to the legislature for approval of the
appropriation to execute the plan the following fiscal year.
MR. MYLIUS acknowledged it doesn't say it exactly, but when the
fiscal notes were prepared DNR assumed there would not be money
in the bill for acquisitions. The assumption was that the
department would have to return to the legislature with a
subsequent request. For a purchase the request would be for an
appropriation for a specific purpose and for a land exchange the
request would ask for financing to fund the exchange.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS asked if the assumption was that the
department would ask the legislature for approval of the
authorization to expend the funds, but not approval to select
the land.
MR. MYLIUS replied that is correct.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS recalled that the original bill mentioned
the acquisition of only two miles, but according to subsection
(c) two miles would be acquired each year.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied there is an amendment to address
that issue, but the intention was for the list to include a set
number of miles. There ought to be minimum number of miles for
DNR to identify each year but the state probably won't purchase
everything on the list each year. In fact, it probably won't
purchase through the list in a decade. "It's not like you'll
have a new 2 or 3 or 4 miles every year. It'll just be as it's
purchased through." The list will probably look the same until
the legislature decides to buy.
3:47:23 PM
SENATOR KOOKESH joined the meeting.
3:47:33 PM
CHAIR WAGONER mentioned that the amendment says 2 to 5 miles per
year.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said it's the committee's discretion so long
as the top number isn't too high.
CHAIR WAGONER closed the public hearing. He noted the three
amendments and asked for a motion.
3:48:39 PM
SENATOR FRED DYSON moved CSHB 37(FIN) AM, Version X.A for
consideration.
SENATOR BERT STEDMAN objected.
SENATOR KIM ELTON moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled X.A.3.
24-LS0284\XA.3
Bullock
9/25/06
A M E N D M E N T 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: CSHB 37(FIN) am
Page 3, line 13, following "two":
Insert "and not more than a total of five"
SENATOR DYSON called a point of order saying there was an
objection to moving the bill.
CHAIR WAGONER clarified that the objection was for discussion
purposes so the bill is before the committee.
SENATOR ELTON restated his motion.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS objected.
SENATOR ELTON said the sponsor took note when Senator Stedman
identified the open-ended language, which required "a minimum
access to not less than a total of two meander miles..." The
proposed amendment tightens the language by inserting "not more
than a total of five meander miles". Therefore, over time there
would be no additions to the plan until the list dropped below
two miles.
SENATOR STEDMAN responded the language is still problematic
because there would be an action every year and in his view the
more land that is kept in private hands, the better it is for
the state.
SENATOR ELTON explained that the amendment caps the plan, but it
doesn't change other restricting components in the bill. Nothing
compels an easement or a sale; it specifically says that the
right of eminent domain may not be exercised to acquire land or
interest in land.
CHAIR WAGONER asked Senator Stevens if he maintained his
objection.
SENATOR STEVENS asked where it says it will cap the plan because
he interpreted the language differently.
3:54:20 PM
SENATOR ELTON explained that the departments will proffer one
plan and it may have not less than 2 miles and not more than 5.
He looked to the sponsor and said he didn't believe anything
would preclude the departments from having a new plan the next
year that may not include or identify the same stream access
points. However, if the departments submit a new plan it would
be restricted, just as the old plan was, to not less than 2
meander miles and more not more than 5. The cap applies to the
meander miles; it doesn't preclude the department from changing
or identifying other meander miles.
3:55:42 PM
SENATOR BEN STEVENS countered his reading is that there shall be
2 to 5 miles acquired every year and there is no cap on the
number of miles acquired in the plan. Hypothetically, he said,
50 meander miles of riverbank could be acquired in 10 years. He
asked if his interpretation was incorrect.
SENATOR ELTON replied no, but you would only get to that
position if the legislature authorized access to all meander
miles in the plan. You could only add miles if access has been
provided to all the areas in the plan. At that point the
department could add meander miles in a subsequent plan. That
would only occur after the legislature has made a decision to
appropriate funds to acquire the access.
3:57:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said Senator Elton explained the intention
of the bill, but Senator Stevens raised a good point. The state
probably won't purchase access to all the land that is on the
list each year so the departments should not be required to keep
submitting a new list each year even if it's the same one. He
suggested inserting language to clarify that an annual plan
isn't required as long as at least 2 miles remain on the list
for future acquisition.
He offered to work with the committee on a conceptual amendment.
3:58:02 PM
SENATOR BEN STEVENS said he wasn't prepared to work on a
conceptual amendment; he had additional concerns. For instance,
Section 2, subsection (b)(2), gives the commissioner of DNR the
authority to trade state land for private land with no
legislative approval or fiscal note transaction. There is no
understanding that an assessment would be done, that the land
trade would be at fair market value and that it would be a
transaction of equal value. The commissioner could trade 5 miles
each year and although it wouldn't cost anything, the
legislature wouldn't have any authority to prevent it.
MR. MYLIUS replied while the bill doesn't specifically require
DNR to go back to the legislature, the only way a purchase could
occur is through the budget process. He agreed that the
department could exchange land without legislative approval, but
there's already a process for that. However, the statute for
land exchange requires an exchange at fair market appraised
value or, in its absence, it requires legislative approval.
CHAIR WAGONER said the question before the committee is adoption
of Amendment X.A.3.
4:02:06 PM
SENATOR ELTON argued in favor of the amendment because it is
controlling and precludes a large land trade by placing a top-
end cap.
SENATOR DYSON called a question on the amendment.
A roll call vote was taken. The motion to adopt Amendment X.A.3
passed with 4 yeas and 3 nays. Senator Dyson, Senator Elton,
Senator Kookesh and Senator Wagoner voted in favor and Senator
Stedman, Senator Ben Stevens, and Senator Seekins voted against.
CHAIR WAGONER said he would hold his amendments because he could
see the direction the bill was going. He noted Senator Stedman's
objection to the bill and asked for a roll call.
A roll call vote was taken and Senator Elton, Senator Kookesh
and Senator Dyson voted yea and Senator Stedman, Senator Ben
Stevens, Senator Seekins and Senator Wagoner voted nay.
CSHB 37(FIN) AM failed to move from committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|