Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 124
03/18/2005 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB198 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 198 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 18, 2005
8:34 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Thomas, Co-Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative John Harris
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Co-Chair
Representative Woodie Salmon
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 198
"An Act relating to aquatic farming; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 198(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 198
SHORT TITLE: AQUATIC FARMING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ELKINS
03/04/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/04/05 (H) FSH, RES
03/18/05 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JOS GOVARS, Staff
to Representative Jim Elkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 198 on behalf of Representative
Elkins, sponsor.
PAUL FUHS, Lobbyist
for PAC Alaska, LLC.
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 198.
STEVE LACROIX
PAC Alaska, LLC.
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 198.
JULIE DECKER, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fisheries Association (SARDFA)
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 198.
JOHN MALOUF, President
Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fisheries Association (SARDFA)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 198.
DAVID BEDFORD, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 198 and answered
questions regarding the bill.
BOB HARTLEY, President
Alaskan Shellfish Growers Association (ASGA)
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 198.
ROGER PAINTER, Vice President
Alaskan Shellfish Growers Association (ASGA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 198.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR BILL THOMAS called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:34:37 AM. Representatives
Elkins, Kapsner, Thomas, and Wilson were present at the call to
order. Representative Harris arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 198-AQUATIC FARMING
8:35:08 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 198, "An Act relating to aquatic farming; and
providing for an effective date."
8:35:14 AM
JOS GOVARS, Staff to Representative Elkins, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 198 on behalf of Representative
Elkins, sponsor. He explained that the bill would amend the
state's Aquatic Farming Act to allow aquatic farms to continue
to operate in compliance with a recent supreme court decision.
He stated:
In mid-April, the state supreme court ruled that the
act requires the [Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G)] to deny shellfish farmers exclusive rights to
significant populations of wild geoducks on their
proposed farm sites. Since then, the Southeast Alaska
Regional Dive Fisheries Association (SARDFA) and the
Alaskan Shellfish Growers Association (ASGA) and
[ADF&G] have negotiated an agreement that would allow
these farmers to harvest "insignificant" populations
of standing stocks of geoducks. In order to be
implemented, this agreement would require a change in
statute. Section 1 of HB 198 amends the Aquatic
Farming Act to allow shellfish owners to own, harvest
and sell "insignificant populations" of wild shellfish
stocks on their aquatic farm sites.
MR. GOVARS continued:
On February 11, 2005, the [ADF&G] announced that it
will conduct a commercial dive fishery on the
designated mariculture sites to remove the
commercially significant populations of wild geoducks
from these areas. This fishery will be open to all
commercial divers in Southeast Alaska. Section 2 of
HB 198 makes it clear that the aquatic farmers do not
have to replace the shellfish that are harvested in
this common property fishery. Section 3 gives the
[ADF&G] the authority, when it determines it would be
beneficial to do so, to let the shellfish farmers
remove all but an "insignificant population" of wild
stock from their sites themselves and give the
proceeds of their sale to the [ADF&G}. Section 4
codifies the requirement that proposed farm sites can
only get permits if there is an "insignificant
population" of shellfish species to be cultured there,
and Section 7 says that this section applies only to
permits issued after July 1, 2005.
8:37:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked Mr. Govars to define
"insignificant."
MR. GOVARS responded that SARDFA and ASGA reached an agreement
defining "insignificant" as less than 12,000 pounds [of geoduck
clams per farm site].
8:37:54 AM
PAUL FUHS, Lobbyist for PAC Alaska, LLC., commented that PAC
Alaska supported HB 198. He asked the committee to clarify with
ADF&G that a "significant amount" should be defined as 12,000
pounds or more. He also expressed concern that line 14 on page
2 could be interpreted to mean that the bill would authorize
ADF&G to hold a commercial fishery on top of a planted farm
site. He said, "If [ADF&G] would put that on the record, that
this language does not mean that they could hold a commercial
fishery on the site after it's been planted, then we'd be
satisfied with this language."
8:40:28 AM
MR. FUHS asked that the committee also clarify with ADF&G lines
5-7 on page 3 regarding the amount of wild stock on a proposed
farm site. He said, "We want to make sure that they clarify
that that means on the site, not in the general area. Because
if it's in the general area, there's no way that you could
actually determine it. ... It shouldn't be the general area; it
should be on the farm site."
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked Mr. Fuhs if he would like the
language in the bill cleared up.
MR. FUHS replied that he would like to see the bill move, and if
the ADF&G would state their intent clearly, then that would be
fine.
STEVE LACROIX, PAC Alaska, LLC., pointed out that the language
in the bill says, "on the farm site," but the proposed
regulation reads differently. He said, "As long as it's clear
that we're going by the guidance of the statute, then we
shouldn't have a problem."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that the sentence already includes
the word "site" twice.
MR. LACROIX said that he just wanted to be sure.
8:43:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt Amendment 1, which would
change lines 5-7 on page 3 to read:
the proposed farm site may not include more than an
insignificant population of a wild stock, on the site,
of a shellfish species intended to be cultured on the
site
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER made a friendly objection and commented
that the language was not grammatically correct.
8:45:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON amended Amendment 1 to read:
the proposed farm site may not include more than an
insignificant population of a wild stock, on the site,
of a shellfish species intended to be cultured
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER withdrew her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained that the amendment is to clarify
the language.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS withdrew his objection.
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
8:47:20 AM
JULIE DECKER, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Regional Dive
Fisheries Association (SARDFA), testified in favor of HB 198.
8:48:14 AM
JOHN MALOUF, President, Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fisheries
Association (SARDFA), testified in favor of HB 198. He
commented, "I think this bill [has] good intentions to spread
the wild stocks between the fisheries and leave some
'insignificant' stocks ... for the farmers.... As the bill is
now, it makes sure that there [are] no net proceeds for the
farmers."
8:50:00 AM
DAVID BEDFORD, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), testified in support
of HB 198. He stated:
The mariculture industry has great promise, however
it's been stymied over the past several years, both by
inattention under the prior administration and by an
ongoing string of litigation over what sorts of rights
or opportunities farmers ought to have to harvest
common property resource. The legislation that you
have in front of you is designed to remove some of
these barriers. In particular, the superior court in
the State of Alaska ruled that we are obligated to
provide access for farmers to insignificant stocks of
property geoducks. The supreme court however said
that the statute prevents us from so doing. So this
legislation would then give us that authority.
MR. BEDFORD continued:
Farm sites fall into two basic general classes at this
point. First off, we have farm sites in which there's
been no substantial farming activity. ... Section 1 of
[HB 198] ... would put us in a position where we could
authorize farmers to take possession of insignificant
stocks of geoducks for purposes of sale. However, at
this particular point on farm sites that have no
substantial activity on those sites, we are conducting
fisheries in order to make sure that the remaining
stock of geoducks on those sites is an insignificant
amount so that we can then transfer those to the
farmers and allow them to move on to the business of
cultivating. The second class of farm sites are those
in which there's been a significant amount of
activity. ... In Section 3, we create a new authority
for the commissioner that he does not currently have,
which would give the commissioner the authority to
authorize a farmer to harvest significant amounts of
public resource that's on the farm site in order to
facilitate the aquatic farming, provided that the
farmer pays reasonable compensation to the public for
the harvest of the public resource. ... We believe the
plain language of the section is that it would allow
the commissioner to [authorize] exclusive harvest by
the farmer; it doesn't have anything to do with
allowing a commercial fishery on site.
8:52:56 AM
MR. BEDFORD continued:
The legislation also includes a couple of other
elements that we think are quite important. In
Section 2, it would modify the existing aquatic
farming statutes to prevent what could be a manifest
injustice, in our opinion. The statute as currently
written would require a farmer, at the end of his
tenure, to replace the level of wild stock that
existed on the farm site at the time he received the
lease. In the instances we have now, where we're
conducting a commercial fishery on some sites, it
would require the farmer to replace the stock that was
removed by the commercial fishery. We are strongly in
support of Section 2 because it would prevent that
outcome.... Section 5 is also quite important from
our perspective because it extends to aquatic farmers
the kind of confidentiality that commercial fishermen
currently have for access to their personal business
records. ... It does maintain one exception that would
allow the public access to information on annual
harvest of common property resource from a farm.
8:54:34 AM
MR. BEDFORD stated that ADF&G agrees that "insignificant" be
defined as 12,000 pounds. However, he noted:
The second element of what is significant is the
density of the stock on a particular location, and how
close it is to an existing commercial fishery. So
part of ... the regulatory process that we would go
through would be 12,000 pounds, but ... also, if it
was right next door, right on top of a commercial
fishery, then the question would be, "Is there a dense
stock as well? Are the geoducks on the site ...
available for harvest to a commercial fishery?"
MR. BEDFORD continued, "On the question of whether 12,000 pounds
would apply to a site as opposed to a general area: we're fine
with that if SARDFA and ASGA are good with that."
8:55:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON remarked that, although the rate of levy
is not in the bill, she wanted ADF&G to state its intentions for
the record so that there is no misunderstanding later. She
turned attention to the letter of support from SARDFA and
referred to the following statement on page 3:
The most important concept to remember when discussing
the rate of levy is that a higher rate will give less
incentive to farmers to poach geoducks.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented, "I just want to make sure that
everybody understands what the [ADF&G] is going to do to make
sure that [there is no poaching], because we have to also
protect the rights of the common good for everybody else.
8:57:27 AM
MR. BEDFORD replied:
Part of that is a problem with enforcement if somebody
is harvesting outside of an area in which they're
entitled to do so. We will go through a regulatory
process as soon as this legislation is enacted so that
we can put in place the kinds of regulations that are
necessary to permit harvest by farmers of shellfish on
their sites and then also to monitor those harvests.
MR. BEDFORD explained that ADF&G will have a reporting
requirement for farmers to report their harvest on an ongoing
basis.
8:58:33 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS commented that there are no enforcement
penalties in the bill, and he asked if the ADF&G would add
penalties to the regulations.
MR. BEDFORD replied that ADF&G could place penalties in
regulations if it was the will of the legislature, but he noted
that there are already criminal penalties in place for taking a
resource without the authority to do so.
8:59:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the levy would be based on the
ex-vessel value, and if so, would the rate be "high enough to
make sure that they reflect the differences between the values?"
MR. BEDFORD responded that ADF&G hasn't settled on anything yet,
but is considering a rate of levy of 50 percent for stocks that
are sold live, and 30 percent for stocks that are sold
processed. He commented that ADF&G would take additional input
during the regulatory process before it settled on a number. He
noted, "We're in a situation here in which we have to assure
that the public receives adequate compensation for exclusive
harvest of a public resource."
9:00:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reiterated the importance of assuring that
the public gets its fair share.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS turned to page 2, line 14, and asked if
this language would allow the ADF&G to hold a commercial fishery
over a planned farm site.
MR. BEDFORD replied that it would not and he said:
The authority to hold a commercial fishery is found
elsewhere in the Alaska statutes. This ... only
allows us to do something which currently we cannot
do, which is to allow one particular individual to
have exclusive access to a common property resource.
In this case, the farmer could be given exclusive
access to a significant amount of geoducks that were
on his farm site.
9:01:43 AM
BOB HARTLEY, President, Alaskan Shellfish Growers Association
(ASGA) testified in support of HB 198. He stated:
The only thing that I ask is that we do have a
clarification of the 12,000 pounds, making sure that
it is on the farm site, and that the harvest of
significant animals after the public harvest and the
levy of a tax ... [does not exceed] the 30 percent.
The 50 percent seems to be quite a bit, and whether
that tax is levied on the gross or the net of the
harvest is another question that we need to have
clarified. ... But in general it's a good agreement; I
think it will help the diver fishery and the farming
industry, and allow for the conduct of a good business
in the area.
9:03:30 AM
ROGER PAINTER, Vice President, Alaskan Shellfish Growers
Association (ASGA) commented:
I'm glad to hear the [ADF&G] clarified the [12,000]
pounds being on the farm site, because under the draft
regulations that had been developed, the survey would
have encompassed an area that's probably 10-12 times
the farmed side. And that's where the 12,000 pounds
would have been determined. ... One of the primary
concerns that the farmers have about these commercial
fisheries is getting assurances from [ADF&G] that once
they're completed, they can go ahead with the farming
activities without worry of subsequent commercial
fisheries coming on the site. The hatchery currently
is holding up to a million geoduck seed; this is the
first seed that's been available for farmers, and it
needs to be moved out of the hatchery right away. And
if there's any uncertainty, the farmers are going to
be very hesitant to proceed with plantings.
MR. PAINTER noted that the enforcement concerns on aquatic farms
are no different than those of the commercial fisheries. He
commented that there is a limited amount of enforcement
capabilities.
9:06:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS moved to report HB 198 as amended out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 198(FSH) was
reported from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 9:06:20
AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|