Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
03/05/2007 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB134 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 5, 2007
8:42 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Lindsey Holmes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 134
"An Act relating to conservation and protection of wild salmon
production in drainages affecting the Bristol Bay Fisheries
Reserve; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 134
SHORT TITLE: PROTECTION OF SALMON SPAWNING WATER
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EDGMON
02/14/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/07 (H) FSH, RES
02/28/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
02/28/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/28/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/02/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
03/02/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/02/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/05/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KARL RAWSON
South Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated opposition to HB 134.
ALEXUS KWACHKA
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for HB 134.
JASON METROKIN, Board Member/Shareholder
Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated opposition to HB 134.
RICHARD MILL
Ninilchik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for HB 134.
JASON BENNER
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for HB 134.
BEN NYGREN
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for HB 134.
MARK E. ANGASAN
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated opposition to HB 134 [SB 67
referenced].
WILLIAM COOK
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for HB 134.
GAIL PHILLIPS, Member
Truth About Pebble
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated opposition to HB 134.
JOEL TUTT
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for HB 134.
DAVID BOONE
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for HB 134.
DAN SALMON
Igiugig Village Council
Igiugig, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated opposition to HB 134.
CLARA ANGASAN
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated opposition to HB 134.
SALLY GUMLICKPUK, President
Stuyahok Limited
New Stuyahok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for HB 134.
JOHN TOPPENBERG, Director
Alaska Wildlife Alliance
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for HB 134.
JOSEPH JOYNER, Natural Resource Manager
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions regarding HB 134.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:42:14 AM. Representatives
Edgmon, Johnson, and Wilson were present at the call to order.
Representative Johansen arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 134-PROTECTION OF SALMON SPAWNING WATER
8:43:02 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 134, "An Act relating to conservation and
protection of wild salmon production in drainages affecting the
Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve; and providing for an effective
date."
[The motion to adopt CSHB 134, Version M, was left pending at
the 2/28/07 meeting.]
CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony.
8:44:39 AM
KARL RAWSON, stated opposition to HB 134, and said that it holds
one industry accountable over another for safeguarding the
environment. When the fishing season ends, and the industries
[fish canneries] "pull-out," the beaches are littered with
garbage, which the municipalities residents clean-up each year.
The canneries do not satisfy the employment needs of the area,
or the needed diversification for economic development. He
opined that without Shell Oil or Northern Dynasty, bringing more
jobs in, the communities will dwindle and the area may be used
only for a summer time recreation area. He stressed the need
for the villages to have further employment opportunities.
8:48:06 AM
ALEXUS KWACHKA, stated support for HB 134, and said that, as a
Bristol Bay fisherman, he is very concerned with the downstream
effects of mining in the region. He expressed empathy for the
village residents, and underscored that he is not opposed to
mining conducted in an environmentally friendly way. However,
he expressed concern for disrupting what is already working well
in the area, in the way of renewable seafood resources.
8:49:54 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if his concerns are primarily for downstream
pollution from the proposed mine, or the aspects of the bill
that restrict the use of water, from the watershed.
MR. KWACHKA responded that both the hydrology effects as well as
the pollution threat, are concerns. He cited the experience in
Karluk, where the fishery was "wiped-out" and has never been
able to recover, despite the best biological efforts. There is
enough trial and error from the past to learn from, and he said,
"I'm concerned of basically tampering with the hydrology in any
way, shape or form."
8:51:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired whether he commercially fishes in
Bristol Bay solely, or other areas also.
MR. KWACHKA answered that 50-70 percent of his income is from
fishing in Bristol Bay.
8:51:54 AM
JASON METROKIN, Board Member/Shareholder, Bristol Bay Native
Corporation (BBNC), stated opposition to HB 134, on behalf of
the BBNC Board of Directors. The board considers the blanket
legislation to be an impediment to economic and community
development. Despite the need to preserve and protect the
fishery, development in the area is necessary. He expressed
concern that the measures stipulated in HB 134 would make
fundamental community projects cost prohibitive, if not legally
impossible. "Planned and future developments in our region
should not be at the mercy of legislation, designed to single
out one controversial project." He offered the board's
suggestion that the bill be rewritten.
8:54:18 AM
RICHARD MILL, stated support for HB 134, and said that he
derives 75 percent of his income from commercial fishing in
Bristol Bay, and the balance from fishing the Kvichak/Iliamna
Lake area. He relayed his concern for the downriver pollution
caused by leach mining. On a nation wide scale, this type of
mining has proven detrimental, he said. Problems of containing
the contaminants, and chemicals, continue to occur, with
devastating effects on surrounding watersheds. Additionally,
the ExxonMobil Corporation has proven that the judiciary
safeguards are not valid. After 20 years, mitigation of the
Prince William Sound oil spill is still pending. He urged
passage of the bill.
8:56:31 AM
JASON BENNER, stated support for HB 134, and said that 80-90
percent of his annual income is derived as a commercial
fisherman in Bristol Bay. Additionally, his family has
owned/operated a guiding camp on the Nushagak River, for the
past 15 years. He explained that he is originally from Montana,
and described his experience of witnessing Northern Dynasties
mining work in the Bitterroot Valley region, reporting the
devastation to the Blackfoot River that the company has caused.
Montana is still paying the price, monetarily in the millions,
as well as the loss of the fishery, and environmental costs.
Mitigation has not been possible due to Northern Dynasty being
from outside of the United States. He stated support for small
scale, non-chemical mining.
8:58:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what the distinction is between a
camp and a lodge, and whether it is delineated by the type of
structure involved.
MR. BENNER described the camp, which his family operates,
stating that they do have a physical structure, boats, and
equipment available to the users.
8:59:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired whether his family holds perfected water
rights for the use of the facility.
MR. BENNER responded that the camp utilizes a well, and does not
draw water from the river.
9:00:18 AM
BEN NYGREN, stated support for HB 134, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I support the aim of HB 134, which is the protection
of the waters which nourish Bristol Bay's prodigious
and lucrative salmon runs. These local salmon
populations are a renewable economic and cultural
treasure. Industrial scale removal of water from the
streams in which this treasured resource rears would
be just like sucking part of the air out of someone's
home.
I was reared in Portland, Oregon, a short distance
from the mighty Columbia River. This river was
formerly home to one of the world's greatest salmon
populations. Careless development has slashed this
stock to a shadow of its former self. Billions of
dollars have been spent to restore the Columbia
watershed's salmon to their pre-development levels,
with the successful outcome still far from certain.
With wild salmon taking hits all over the world, what
a great feeling it is that our Bristol Bay stocks are
still in relative good health.
If the waters of our salmon streams are diverted for
the purposes of extracting, transporting or storing
sulfide bearing mineral ore, there would be in my
opinion an unacceptable risk that these once pristine
waters would come back to haunt us in the form of
sulfuric acid, dissolved heavy metals and other
toxins.
I don't see this bill as favoring one industry over
another. When an industry pollutes, or otherwise
damages our environment, without incurring a cost,
that industry is not paying the full true cost for
their activities.
If denying mining companies these salmon bearing
waters for their industrial use adds to their cost of
doing business, then that added cost is only bringing
them closer to paying the true overall cost for their
activities.
My family has a heritage in the mining industry. My
father and two generations before him worked part or
most of their lives in the Montana mining industry. I
am not opposed to mining and recognize its importance
in our world. The headwaters of Bristol Bay's
important salmon streams are however the wrong place
for industrial scale mining.
Illustrations of environmental detriment incurred
elsewhere in our country, which may be analogous to
future industry caused problems in the Bristol Bay
watershed include:
1) The Berkley pit in Butte, Montana. This now closed
open pit copper mine is over one mile in diameter and
1800 feet deep. After mining operations ceased, it
filled with a toxic stew of arsenic and heavy metals
so thick that the water itself is mined, and is now
the nation's largest body of contaminated water.
Though ARCO, the sites owners, deny this poses any
risk to human or wildlife health, a 1995 incident
where 342 snow geese died after landing on the site
may lead one to question ARCO's credibility when
speaking to their site's safety. The estimated total
cost for cleanup and control at the pit is $110
million.
2) On June 5, 1976 an earthen dam, the Teton Dam, in
Idaho failed spectacularly. Downstream communities
where severely damaged, and the government was liable
for $322 million dollars in claims. A few hours of
advanced warning afforded many the chance to flee to
safety, but 11 lives where still lost.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether he is primarily concerned about the
pollution, water use issues, or environmental changes.
MR. NYGREN said, "If we're talking about sulfide mining fill
sitting upstream from me, I'm opposed to that."
9:04:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON pointed out that the original bill has
brought forth a number of unintended consequences, which will be
addressed in the CS version.
9:05:53 AM
MARK E. ANGASAN, stated opposition to HB 134 [SB 67 referenced],
paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
I am an Alaskan Native, I have lived here in King
Salmon all of my life, I am married, I have a son that
is married and I have 3 grandchildren that also lives
here in King Salmon. I have been a commercial salmon
fisherman all of my life. We also harvest food from
the land and our lakes and rivers to help supplement
our homes with food. I want to express my opposition
to any plans to develop the Hammond fish refuge in the
region and the Alaska Wild Salmon Protection Act
(Senate Bill 67 and House Bill 134). I am speaking to
both because I see them both as a means to stop
economic development in Bristol Bay. We are already
surrounded by enough refuges, reserves, State and
National Parks.
Those of us who live here see the need to keep our
options open to future economic development - whether
it's the Pebble project, oil & gas development or any
other economic opportunities that SB 67 or HB 134
might preclude. We can no longer afford to be the
play ground for the rich who come here to play or for
the special interest groups that want to involve
themselves in our lives. We can no longer allow them
to dictate to us what is in our best interests.
We shouldn't be forced to consider limited economic
opportunities because of the fear mongering, peer
pressure, and the misleading information taking place
about developing our natural recourses. We can't
continue to say there are cures in the near future for
our salmon fisheries. Or make statements that our
salmon fishery is coming back, it's on the rebound.
When is that going to happen? How many more years do
we have to keep telling ourselves that? The fish
prices that we are getting to day is what we got 30
years ago and it isn't keeping up with the cost of
living. Many of our people no longer fish because
they sold their permits. At one time we had over 800
drift permits in our villages today we have less than
400. We need economic diversity.
As for the Pebble mine project, there is no permit
application to judge, to the best of my knowledge they
haven't completed the environmental reviews or the
impacts studies that are to be submitted to State and
Federal regulators for permitting. And if the
environmental and impact studies don't pass the
reviews the mine will not be able to operate. Until
all the reviews are completed there is nothing to
judge.
There is no group more concerned about the protection
of our fish and wildlife resources than those of us
who live here. But we also know that Alaska has a
system in place for ensuring environmental protection
that has a proven tract record. If I am wrong please
correct me.
Too often, policy makers can be convinced to rush to
make a decision for the sake of satisfying political
promises made to special interest groups or to the
wealthy that made campaign contributions. I want to
assure you that many of us that live in this region
recognize the long-term impacts of pushing ahead with
this fish refuge proposal at the expense of future
economic opportunities and the ability to provide for
ourselves.
For those that want to stop development within our
region of the state, I ask what solutions do they have
to provide for economic growth, diversity and security
for us? The answer is nothing!! Are these same
people going to put food on our tables? Are they
going to put oil in our tanks? Are they going to pay
for our light bills? Are they going to put gas in our
trucks? Are they going to provide for our financial
wants and needs? No, they won't. We need to do that
for ourselves, but they want to dictate under what
conditions we are to live in.
The late Governor Hammond has passed on, please don't
bury us with him by adopting these two legislative
proposals. Don't sacrifice a region and its people of
new economic opportunities because someone wants to
honor his name or by saying that this is what he would
have wanted. People are trying to romanticize and
twist his words. He supported economic development.
In the early 60's as our State Representative he was
successful in getting a resolution passed in the State
legislature to develop a road from the Bristol Bay
Borough thru the Katmai National Park to a ferry
terminal in the Shelikof's to promote economic
development. As shown here: Katmai Administrative
History 1950-69 Chapter 4.
We still need a road, railroad or a dirt path to
Anchorage, the Interior Rail belt or to a ferry
terminal to promote economic opportunities and to
reduce the cost of living to the region. Forgive me,
but this is what our State Legislature should be
working on, not trying to find ways to stop economic
growth and development from occurring within Bristol
Bay. We still need ground transportation. We need
economic growth and security. We need cheaper energy.
We need to reduce the cost of living to our villages.
Where's the Legislation to address these issues?
We live in a cash economy, we need more than just the
ability to pick berries and put fish in the freezer as
we all do. We need more than living in a subsistence
lifestyle. Please don't allow this legislation to be
adopted. We need major economic change and solutions
for the long term.
9:12:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON reminded witnesses to focus on the issues of the
bill.
9:13:25 AM
WILLIAM COOK, stated support for HB 134, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Once the hydrology of this region gets changed,
altered, or polluted, the mining company won't be able
to take it back it will be too late.
I have very real concerns about the future of the
Bristol Bay region, its people, and its fisheries.
The ecological impact of large scale sulfide mining
for copper, and the ecological impact of cyanide heap
leaching for gold. These present very serious threats
to our environment that will affect this area, its
fisheries both sports and commercial fishing.
This will also create health risks to the people of
Bristol Bay region for thousands of years.
A mine on the scale of this one can generate almost
unimaginable amounts of particulate contamination,
trillions of gallons of contaminated wastewater,
trillions of tons of acid generating tailings.
Just the fact that someone wants to use cyanide! (a
deadly poison) on an industrial level upstream from
where my family lives, makes it unacceptable.
This mine is an ecological disaster waiting to happen.
How can anyone or any company tell the people of the
Bristol Bay region and the state of Alaska that they
can provide adequate habitat protection from
contamination of this magnitude and expect us to
believe it!
How can contaminated materials of this magnitude not
affect the aquifer, the watershed, and groundwater.
It is true that the mine will provide jobs and
infrastructure. But at what cost? Long after the
mining company is gone the people of the Bristol Bay
region will be living the legacy of the damage this
mine can do to our environment. Just so a company
owned by some person or, persons in another country
can get rich!
I pray that those of you who are in a place where you
have an opportunity to protect the people of the state
of Alaska and the Bristol Bay region will have the
wisdom and courage to protect us from the greed of
outside interests, have the wisdom and courage to
protect us from our own greed, and the foresight to
protect our water! By supporting this bill HB 134.
After reading Mr. Trasky's testimony on the mining
permit process, I feel strongly these need to be
addressed and rectified as well. These are very real
and serious problems.
9:16:39 AM
GAIL PHILLIPS, Member, Truth About Pebble, stated opposition to
HB 134, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
I think this bill should be renamed from "An act
relating to conservation and protection of wild salmon
production....." to a more honest assessment, which
would be "the illegal takings of any and all future
economic and resource development for the entire
Bristol Bay region".
You have previously heard credible opposing testimony
to this unprecedented and transparent withdrawal of
over 22 million acres of mineral-productive lands in
Southwest Alaska; lands that were specifically
identified for mineral development when the State made
its land selection.
I am not going to repeat the facts that have
previously been presented to you in opposition of this
bill; I am, however, going to focus my testimony on
three major issues: (1)a blatantly onerous attempt to
circumvent Alaska's legally-established permitting
process; (2) the "takings" issue that will result in
major lawsuits against constitutional mandates
regarding the development of our natural resources for
the benefit of all Alaskans; and (3) the
constitutional mandates regarding the development of
our natural resources for the benefit of all Alaskans.
1. Circumvention of the State's Permitting Process:
Alaska is one of the richest resource states in the
Union, with many types and vast amounts of natural
resources available for development. We have been
diligent in our efforts to create comprehensive
permitting policies that now insure the safe and
profitable development of our resources. As you are
all aware, laws pertaining to Alaska's permitting
process are continually updated and refined as new
technologies become available.
When I was Speaker of the House, revising and updating
our well-established permitting policies was a high
priority. We did not do this in a vacuum - all of
these policy refinements were accomplished in an open
public process. The best scientific advice was
applied, while conforming to State and Federal
guidelines and the adamant direction of the people of
Alaska to "DO THINGS RIGHT".
As a result of Alaska's on-going permitting process,
and thanks to many of you for your efforts in this
regard, we now have major resource development
projects throughout the State that are the most
environmentally safe in the Nation.
This blatant attempt to circumvent our permitting
process, especially on lands that have been previously
identified for mineral and resource development, is
egregious and completely contrary to our State's
fairness doctrine.
2. The "Takings" Issue:
This bill would specifically stop all mineral
development. Yet, at this time we all know that there
is a mineral prospect in the area that has the
potential to exceed $2 billion in mined product.
Geologic exploration and results show this prospect to
be one of the largest in the world. If this bill
should pass and the millions of acres withdrawn from
future mineral development, "takings" lawsuits will be
inevitable. We don't have enough money in the State,
including all the assets of our Permanent Fund, to
cover the potential amounts of payments that will
follow. This one issue alone could easily bankrupt
the State of Alaska.
3. Constitutional Mandate to Develop our Resources:
Each of you, as I did when I served in the
Legislature, took an oath of office to uphold the
Constitution of our State. Article VIII - Natural
Resources - of our Constitution is very clear about
the policy of the State to encourage the development
of its resources for maximum public use (Section 2)
and that no exclusive right or special privilege of
fishery shall be created or authorized in the natural
waters of the state (Section 15) and that all laws and
regulations governing the use or disposal of our
natural resources shall apply equally to all persons
(Section 17). I think that an attempt to approve any
version of this onerous legislation will put each of
you in direct conflict with your promise to uphold the
constitution.
9:22:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON questioned the "takings" issue, which Ms.
Phillips raised, and suggested the need for additional legal
opinions. "We don't have, yet, the facts on the table."
MS. PHILLIPS replied, "Certainly legal opinions will float all
over the place." She opined that, if these 22 million acres are
withdrawn from development, it will effect a number of entities.
Northern Dynasty has made clear their intent to proceed with the
permitting process, and if disallowed that opportunity would
have legal standing for a takings lawsuit.
9:24:51 AM
JOEL TUTT, stated support for HB 134, and identified himself as
a third generation fisherman, deriving 80-90 percent of his
income from the Bristol Bay fishery. He said, "I strongly
believe that the watershed supporting this fishery should be
protected at any cost."
9:25:26 AM
DAVID BOONE, stated support for HB 134, and identified himself
as a Bristol Bay fisherman. He said:
I have a degree in fisheries management, and fully
understand the delicate balance between fish habitat,
and fish survival. Protecting the Bristol Bay
watersheds would help insure that that delicate
balance in nature won't be disturbed.
9:26:18 AM
DAN SALMON, Igiugig Village Council, provided the following
testimony:
I'm a Lake and Peninsula Borough Assembly member, a
local school advisory member, and an alternate on the
Iliamna Lake Fish & Game Advisory Committee. Today,
I'd like to speak on behalf of Igiugig Village
Council. Igiugig Village Council is strongly opposed
to any bill creating another layer of land- or
resource-use restriction on us. The Iliamna Lake
Advisory Committee unanimously rejected the recently
proposed Fish and Game reserve concept as well. We
are currently flanked by Katmai and Lake Clark
National Park and Preserve and are prohibited from
uses in those areas already. Our local Native
corporation has over 60,000 acres potentially impacted
by this bill's provisions. By having met former
Governor Hammond on numerous occasions and discussing
his views on state government and policy more than
once, I'm confident he would've liked to see a direct
benefit to the indigenous communities and locally
affected people as (indisc.) included to mitigate
negative consequences endured by those having the
greatest potential economic hardship offered by this
bill.
I recommend a PILO or Payment In Lieu of Opportunity.
Having managed a rural community for sustainability in
the Lake and Peninsula Borough for over 20 years and
for having been recognized for fiscal policy,
sustainability, and achievement, I suggest an
amendment to this proposed piece of legislation
include[ing] a yearly allocation and distribution of
$500,000 per effected community plus a formula-driven
per capita and COLA [cost of living allowance]. This
bottom-line threshold could be funded by CDQ
[community development quota] communities who benefit
through legislation by the fisheries we're excluded
from, yearly legislative appropriations, as well as
the salmon industry, both commercial and sport, we
foster as stewards of spawning and rearing habitat.
Other individuals and groups who seek to create parks,
refuges, critical habitat, et cetera around us should
contribute to this funding mechanism as well. I'm
sure it all could agree that this is a drop in the
bucket compared to the potential fiscal opportunities
we are giving up as a result of this legislation.
For the record, we are enduring $5.50 per gallon gas
and oil, $.60 to $.70 per kilowatt electricity,
limited infrastructure, and exorbitant unemployment.
Our population is down approximately 35 percent over
the last five years and our school is threatened by
closure. We have only one Bristol Bay drift permit
left in our village and no setnet permits at all. We
do have residents and tribal members currently
employed by NDM [Northern Dynasty Mines] and other
mineral exploration companies who are dependent on
this income to feed their families and pay their
bills. Igiugig is officially neutral on the proposed
Pebble Project and reserves support or not at such
time as development permits are applied for and we
have the opportunity to evaluate and make intelligent
decisions through an orderly, established process.
I ask Mr. Edgmon and other legislators to spend
quality and dedicated time on developing implementing
meaningful and sustainable economic opportunity for
the communities and people in the Iliamna Lake and
Upper Nushagak areas that have been excluded from
other legislatively created programs. Please include
our PILO concept in your proposed legislation
discussion. It is incumbent on leaders who propose
new laws to thoroughly perform due diligence on cost
versus benefit. As I believe I'm the longest tenured
tribal administrator in Bristol Bay, I ask the
following: How many Bristol Bay permits have left the
Upper Nushagak and Iliamna Lake area in the last 15
years? How many people participate in the commercial
fishing today? How many Native allotments have been
sold to make ends meet? Where are people with limited
or no credit going to get the vast sums of money to
get back into fishing? What is the unemployment rate
of this subregion, and make sure you count the people
who haven't had a job in so long that they aren't
currently statistically counted in the UI formula.
How much money in food stamps, welfare, energy
assistance, unemployment, and other federal and state
social programs are distributed in this area? How do
these communities with limited funds compete with
required matching funds for infrastructure versus our
neighbors 30 miles distance in CDQ communities?
This entity sanctioned by the federal and state
government has in excess of $70 million in cash and
assets and has a huge advantage over us on Denali and
other grants, individual and community expansion,
education, revenue, et cetera. BBEDC [Bristol Bay
Economic Development Corporation] (indisc.) stands for
Bristol Bay's economically disadvantaged communities.
What are the crime rate statistics for this region?
How come unorganized communities in this region of
Lake and Peninsula Borough are not eligible for state
revenue sharing, but provide state regulated services?
How are we going to be sustainable and provide local
services with no revenue options? This legislation
has the potential to preclude borough formation in
other parts of the unorganized areas of the state. It
puts limits on the tools of local government. The
former Lieutenant Governor Loren Leman, while recently
in office, told a well-attended group of Bristol Bay
leaders to listen carefully to this new industry and
to train our people and prepare strategies to benefit
from it. Our village did just that referencing the
Bristol Bay area plan and investing over $750,000 in
debt by loans to provide housing and other services
for mineral exploration, which we are deriving benefit
from today. Northern Dynasty Mines and similar
companies have provided jobs and training, combined
with transportation to and from our village for people
who wanted to work. I don't know what else they could
do to date. I do know that one of our village council
elected officials, a former Bristol Bay drift permit
holder, commented that he is very excited about
working and feeding his family of six while at the
same time being in a work environment surrounded by
family, friends, and relatives. He said that the
current mail box work mentality of our region must end
if communities are to become healthy and self-
sufficient. I feel these are words of wisdom and
deserve respect. Mr. Coghill from the legislature
recently told me, about impending school closures,
that he didn't think it was the responsibility of the
state body legislature to create laws and programs to
keep villages alive. Well, we don't think it's fair
to create laws that will inhibit or close them either.
This proposal, [HB] 134 is ill-founded and -conceived
and IVC [Igiugig Village Council] rejects it in its
entirety. Out of mutual respect we ask Mr. Edgmon and
others who propose such types of further natural
resource restrictions in our region to visit our
community and familiarize yourselves with us and our
economic problems before including us. Please don't
continue to send our community into the trenches for
survival holding a gun with no opportunity to have any
bullets. Thank you.
9:33:09 AM
CLARA ANGASAN, stated opposition to HB 134, citing concerns that
it would prohibit economic development of the area. She opined
that the village residents are emigrating, due to lack of
opportunities, causing schools to close. HB 134 will not allow
development to change this economic downturn. She questioned
the use of the term subsistence as a modern day lifestyle, and
argument against progress. If a subsistence lifestyle were
being lived, she maintained, there would not be dictates issued
for the number of fish that could be taken, residents would not
be living on welfare, and the children would not be living in an
electronic culture. Pebble Mine does not have a permit as yet,
and people are fearful of the unknown. The children and
grandchildren [in the villages] will need jobs, she predicted,
and the mine will provide them possibilities.
9:36:52 AM
SALLY GUMLICKPUK, President, Stuyahok Limited, stated support
for HB 134, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read
as follows:
I put up subsistence fish every summer, and harvest
the moose, and caribou, when in season. These foods
... survive on the clean waters of our region. So in
order for our continued survival, and for our future
generations to come, we urge you to pass this HB 134.
9:39:54 AM
JOHN TOPPENBERG, Director, Alaska Wildlife Alliance, stated
support for HB 134, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read as follows:
We believe that putting a renewable resource at great
risk, in order to ease the work of a non-renewable
resource, is not in the best long-term interest of all
Alaskan's. The emerging eco-tourism industry will
provide sustainable income for many generations of
Alaskan's. The villages experiencing economic
hardships must start working with the tourism
industry, and others, to explore this promising new
industry. This will not happen if our streams fail to
support wild Alaska. Many of the points made earlier
in favor of this bill, we're certainly in support of.
9:41:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
9:41:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked how well water use relates to perfected water
rights. Further, as the bill is written, does it require the
curtailment of operations, which do not hold perfected water
rights, or prohibit applicants from obtaining the rights.
JOSEPH JOYNER, Natural Resource Manager, Division of Mining,
Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the
method of appropriation doesn't alter the requirement of water
right, whether it is taken from a stream or a well. If a
perfected water right is not held, it would need to be obtained.
The bill, as written, may prohibit someone from obtaining a
perfected water right.
9:44:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how many lodges in the area
currently hold perfected water rights.
MR. JOYNER said that the answer would need to be researched.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained his interest for discovery.
CHAIR SEATON requested, on behalf of the committee, that a list
of the commercial users and water right permit holders be
compiled and submitted for reference.
9:45:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON recapped the status of the bill. The three days of
public testimony have raised issues to be considered by the
sponsor, including: the constitutionality of water rights, as
identified by DNR; whether DNR would be allowed to grant water
rights/use permits to existing, or future, commercial
operations; and the exempted uses vs. user's language, and to
whom this applies. Additionally, the chair asked the sponsor to
consider the separation, or clarification, of the three primary:
pollution and discharges; removal, outtake, or diversion of
water; and the land changes, particularly the prohibition of
conversion to dry land. Exemptions in the CS for projects
pertaining to transportation, energy, and seafood processing
should be specified and defined. As an example, he said, if a
portion of a proposed project includes an energy aspect, does
that qualify the entire project for exemption status. Thus, if
Pebble [Mine] proposed a 300 kilo watt line, providing power to
villages in the area, would that qualify as an energy project;
does the construction of the super highway to access the mine
site, qualify the mine as a transportation project.
9:50:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON acknowledged the scope of HB 134, and the
concerns that have been brought forth. He offered that a number
of unintended consequences are being identified, but the intent
of the bill is not to be punitive to any entity. The intent is
to protect the renewable resources of the region, and the salmon
industry. The Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve has been in place
since 1972, and he read from statute [not cited]:
Within the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve no surface
entry permit to develop an oil or gas lease may be
issued on state owned or controlled lands unless by
appropriate resolution of the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON pointed out that this existing statute
provides restrictions, or caveats, for oversight to be upheld by
the legislature, in terms of oil and gas leases. The concern
for the impacts of a non-renewable resources development on a
renewable resource, he stressed, were at the forefront in 1972,
and HB 134 is a bill to bring that concern forward in a new day,
and a new era.
9:54:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated that this topic is controversial because the
issues are important.
[HB 134 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 9:55.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|