Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/09/1994 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
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 9, 1994
8:15 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Pat Carney
Representative John Davies
Representative David Finkelstein
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eldon Mulder
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Mike Miller
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SB 46: "An Act relating to moose farming and relating to
game farming."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE
HB 238: "An Act relating to the oil and hazardous
substance release response fund, repealing the oil
and hazardous substance municipal impact
assistance program and the authority in law by
which marine highway vessels may be designed and
constructed to aid in oil and hazardous substance
spill cleanup in state marine water using money in
the oil and hazardous substance release response
fund, amending requirements relating to the
revision of state and regional master prevention
and contingency plans, altering requirements
applicable to liens for recovery of state
expenditures related to oil or hazardous
substances, relating to a restoration standard in
certain state environmental laws, modifying
definitions of related terms, amending the manner
of computing the amounts required for the
suspension and reimposition of the oil
conservation surcharge, relating to fees to be
charged and collected by the Department of
Environmental Conservation, and annulling a
regulation related to costs for certain site
restorations."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR MIKE MILLER
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 423
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4976
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor SB 46
JOHN CRAMER, Director
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 949
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Phone: 745-7200
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated most concerns regarding SB 46
have been addressed and answered
questions
BILL WARD
Ward Farms
P.O. Box 290
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Phone: 262-5135
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 46
WAYNE REGELIN, Deputy Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Phone: 465-4190
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns regarding SB 46
LEE PUTNAM, Representative
Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club
6005 Roosevelt Drive
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 225-7694
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 46
ROBERT SHUMAKER
P.O. Box 3712
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Phone: 746-4453
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 46
LEONARD MOFFITT
P.O. Box 748
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Phone: 745-3384
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 46
SANDRA ARNOLD, Representative
Alaska Wildlife Alliance
P.O. Box 202022
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
Phone: 277-0897
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 46
BOB LOCHNER
3325 Tarwater
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Phone: 276-2860
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 46
CAROL JENSEN
8451 Greenhill Way
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Phone: 344-7078
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 46
STANLEY NED, Representative
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 1st Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Phone: 452-8251
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 46
JEREMY WELTON
6810 Steese Highway
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 46
OPAL WELTON
6810 Steese Highway
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 46
DOUG WELTON
6810 Steese Highway
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 46
MEREDITH MARSHALL
429 Edmond Street
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 225-2134
POSITION STATEMENT: Undetermined
STAN STEPHENS, President
Regional Citizens' Advisory Council
of Prince William Sound
P.O. Box 1297
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Phone: 835-4731
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 238
NANCY LETHCOE, President
Alaska Wilderness, Recreation and Tourism Association
P.O. Box 1353
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Phone: 835-5300
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed any change but if change is
necessary, supported HB 238, version Y
THEA THOMAS
P.O. Box 1566
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Phone: 424-5266
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed any change but if change is
necessary, supported HB 238, version Y
KELLY WEAVERLING
P.O. Box 895
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Phone: 424-5205
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed any change but if change is
necessary, supported HB 238, version Y
SALLY KABISCH
P.O. Box 467
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-4060
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 238
PAUL SEATON
58360 Bruce Drive
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-6342
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 238
KRISTIN STAHL-JOHNSON
P.O. Box 2661
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone: 486-4684
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed any change but if change is
necessary, supported HB 238, version Y
KEVIN HARUN, Director
Alaska Center for the Environment
510 M Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 274-3621
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed any change but if change is
necessary, supported HB 238, version Y
RANDY MCGOVERN
1611 Carr
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Phone: 451-0124
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed any change but if change is
necessary, supported HB 238
HILLARY SCHAEFER
8.5 Mile Murphy Dome Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99725
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed any change but if change is
necessary, supported HB 238
KARL BECKER, Representative
Prince William Sound Conservation Alliance
P.O. Box 1185
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Phone: 424-7466
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed any change but if change is
necessary, supported HB 238
DAN DEL MISSIER
144 W. Pioneer Avenue
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 238
ALAN PARKS
P.O. Box 3339
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 238
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 46
SHORT TITLE: AUTHORIZE MOOSE FARMING
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MILLER,Frank,Pearce,Sharp,Taylor;
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Therriault
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/14/93 60 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/14/93 60 (S) RESOURCES, FINANCE
01/15/93 76 (S) COSPONSOR: LINCOLN
01/29/93 189 (S) COSPONSOR: SHARP
02/01/93 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
02/01/93 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/03/93 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/05/93 240 (S) RES RPT 4DP
02/05/93 240 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)
02/17/93 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518
02/17/93 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/01/93 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518
03/01/93 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/03/93 588 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 1DNP NEW TITLE
03/03/93 588 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (DNR)
03/03/93 588 (S) ZERO FNS TO CS (F&G, DEC)
03/03/93 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/09/93 (S) RLS AT 12:15 PM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
03/09/93 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/10/93 710 (S) RULES RPT 3 CAL 1NR 3/10/93
03/10/93 714 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/10/93 714 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED Y14 N5 E1
03/10/93 715 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y5 N14 E1
03/10/93 716 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y7 N12 E1
03/10/93 717 (S) AM NO 3 FAILED Y8 N11 E1
03/10/93 715 (S) AM NO 4 FAILED Y8 N11 E1
03/10/93 716 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD READING FLD
Y11 N8 E1
03/10/93 719 (S) THIRD READING 3/11 CALENDAR
03/10/93 723 (S) COSPONSOR: TAYLOR
03/11/93 755 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME
CSSB 46(FIN)
03/11/93 755 (S) PASSED Y11 N8 E1
03/11/93 756 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
03/11/93 757 (S) COSPONSOR WITHDRAWN: LINCOLN
03/12/93 784 (S) RECON TAKEN UP-IN THIRD READING
03/12/93 785 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION
Y12 N7 E1
03/12/93 786 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/15/93 642 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/15/93 642 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/15/93 658 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): THERRIAULT
04/16/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/17/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/19/93 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/19/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/18/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
02/18/94 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/09/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 238
SHORT TITLE: OIL/HAZARDOUS SUBS. FUND,TAX,PLANS
SPONSOR(S): SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON OIL AND GAS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/19/93 707 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/19/93 708 (H) RESOURCES, STATE AFFAIRS
03/24/93 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/24/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/07/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/07/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/14/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/16/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/17/93 (H) RES AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/17/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
11/12/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/23/94 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/02/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
03/02/94 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/09/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-28, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by
Chairman Bill Williams at 8:20 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Williams, Carney, Davies,
Green, and James. Members absent were Representatives
Hudson, Bunde, and Mulder.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced there is a quorum present. He
advised the meeting is on teleconference with Anchorage,
Cordova, Delta Junction, Fairbanks, Homer, Ketchikan, Mat-
Su, Nome, Seward, Kenai/Soldotna, Valdez, and Kenny Lake.
SB 46 - Authorize Moose Farming
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated it is the committee's third hearing
on SB 46. At the last hearing, a lot of testimony was taken
and at the end of the hearing, Senator Miller was requested
to work with state agencies to draft a proposed substitute
version. He said Senator Miller's office, the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) had met and the proposed committee
substitute for SB 46 is in committee members' folders.
Number 028
SENATOR MIKE MILLER, PRIME SPONSOR SB 46, stated in working
with the two departments, 95 percent of the problems on the
original version, which passed out of the Senate have been
worked out, and stressed the last five percent can be the
most difficult. He felt the remaining problem is a
philosophical problem. He explained the remaining problem
is on page 4, section 4 where current statute is being
amended in the definition of game farm animal. Currently
the statute includes bison, elk, reindeer and musk oxen and
being added are caribou, moose and Sitka black-tailed deer.
He noted ADF&G has a problem with that addition.
Number 040
SENATOR MILLER believed the department's problem with the
ability to set up an experimental animal husbandry program
has been resolved on page 8, subsection (c). It is
envisioned that moose and Sitka black-tailed deer will
probably be included in that program.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVES
HUDSON, BUNDE, AND FINKELSTEIN joined the committee.)
Number 061
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked what the impetus is for
adding caribou, moose, and Sitka black-tailed deer to the
game farm definition.
SENATOR MILLER replied caribou, under the 1937 federal
provision, cannot be farmed unless they are farmed by a
Native group. He felt caribou should be left in the
definition because of lawsuits ongoing with the federal
government. Taking caribou out of the definition would be a
capitulation to the federal government on the issue. He
said Sitka black-tailed deer are a farmable animal. In
regard to moose, once something is out of a statute and
there may be a promise at some point later to add it to the
statute, he said it is usually easier said than done. He
thought it will be better to include moose in the statute
and the experimental process and if it does not work out, a
license may never be issued for moose farming. On the other
hand, it may be determined that a license can be issued but
if it is not in the statute, a license cannot be issued.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN said moose are not a herd-type
animal and are notoriously inefficient. He asked why
someone would want to domesticate moose.
SENATOR MILLER agreed and stated he would never propose
farming moose himself, but he knows there is at least one
individual in the audience who would like to farm moose. He
added moose farming is one of those things that unless it is
tried, how does one know whether or not it will be
successful.
Number 098
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said on page 8, in subsection (d)(2),
it states "demonstrated the ability to properly care for..."
and mentioned his mind thinks of dairy farms where an
animal, which has been domesticated for thousands of years,
lives in hideous conditions.
SENATOR MILLER felt that ADF&G will not allow that to happen
as there are going to be tight, stringent regulations.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if anyone else had asked for the
three new species to be added to the game farm definition.
SENATOR MILLER replied there had been one individual who had
asked for Sitka black-tailed deer to be added. Senator
Miller added caribou because he felt it was important to do
so because of the lawsuits.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked what lawsuits he was referring to.
SENATOR MILLER replied there are a number of lawsuits filed
against the federal government by the state of Alaska on a
number of issues and added that the caribou issue dates back
to 1937.
REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY expressed support for leaving
caribou in the definition.
Number 134
JOHN CRAMER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE, DNR, stated
most of the original concerns on SB 46 have been addressed.
He pointed out that game farming is a viable industry in
Alaska. There is a need for SB 46 to help the industry as
well as allow the department to draft regulations to make
the industry even more viable. He said there are problems
on SB 46 yet to be addressed but he felt the problems can be
resolved.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE stated there will be oversight
involved and asked Mr. Cramer to speak to the fiscal impact.
MR. CRAMER replied that DNR has a fiscal note of $10,000 and
that money will primarily be used for travel to sites for
on-site evaluations. He said in regard to Representative
Green's statement about dairy cows, he did not feel the game
farming industry will involve populations in a confined
setting.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if dairy cows are kept in a barn
the entire winter.
MR. CRAMER said some are. He noted it depends on whether or
not it is a confinement operation.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
MULDER had joined the committee at 8:27 p.m.)
Number 176
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said there have been many discussions in
regard to disease problems and asked Mr. Cramer to comment.
MR. CRAMER responded the state does not allow the
importation of moose and Sitka black-tailed deer into the
state. Therefore, those animals cannot be brought into
Alaska or purchased from outside the state and brought into
the state to be farmed. He said the only source of animals
will be from ADF&G and from the resources currently in the
state. He stated disease is controlled by DEC and stressed
they do a good job, proven by the game farms already in
place.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked the viability of game farming
the three new animals listed in the definition.
MR. CRAMER replied there are farms outside the state
currently farming the animals and are successful. He could
not speculate whether or not the farming can be accomplished
in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES requested a list of operations who
farm the three animals in the lower 48.
Number 210
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked if there are places
where caribou are being farmed.
MR. CRAMER replied there are farms outside of the Seward
Peninsula where there are open range grazing type animals in
confinement type operations. He added there are confined
caribou operations in the lower 48.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he did not understand
Section 16, on page 7 which says, "After a person acquires
an animal under this section for commercial purposes, a
license or permit from the department is not required in
order to possess the animal."
MR. CRAMER stated that section is referring to an animal
which is obtained through the experimental animal husbandry
permit from ADF&G. Once the animal is turned over to
private ownership, the person is not required to continue to
have the experimental permit but rather to have a regular
game farm license.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN disagreed and said the language
states "a license or permit," not that particular license.
He asked where "a license or permit" connects with an
experimental permit.
MR. CRAMER replied the experimental permit is mentioned in
the language prior to the section being referred to
beginning on line 7, page 7.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt the entire section is
extremely confusing. He also thought the final sentence in
Section 16 is confusing where it states, "A license or
permit from the department is not required in order to
import, export, or possess a game farm animal for commercial
purposes under a game farming license." He stated it does
not make sense in the context of what is being discussed.
MR. CRAMER stated the animals which can be imported into the
state are elk, musk oxen, and bison. He said the other
animals listed cannot. He thought the language is
addressing those animals specifically.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN disagreed that it does not apply
only to those species because on page 4, the definition of
game farm animal includes bison, caribou, elk, moose, Sitka
black-tailed deer, reindeer, and musk oxen.
MR. CRAMER pointed out that current statute defines game
farm animals as musk oxen, bison, and elk.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated the proposed legislation
will include all of the species. He pointed out the new law
will say, "A license or permit from the department is not
required in order to import, export, or possess a game farm
animal for commercial purposes under a game farming
license." and game farm animal includes all seven animals.
He thought perhaps there is a drafting problem.
Number 307
BILL WARD, WARD FARMS, SOLDOTNA, stated he currently raises
elk and will soon have musk oxen. He said musk oxen, elk,
reindeer, and bison will not be affected by any action taken
on SB 46, as they presently are a legal animal to farm. He
stated SB 46 will help clean up regulatory power to ensure
those animals, and any others added, are managed in a way to
make the industry more successful and viable. He felt the
animal welfare issue is more of an issue than disease. SB
46 contains language ensuring that animal welfare concerns
are addressed. Mr. Ward said from a commercial owner's
aspect, animal welfare is critical.
MR. WARD stated there are many provisions in SB 46 which
will help create a strong and safe industry and one that is
pleasing to the public perception. He noted the remaining
problems on the bill are a matter of semantics. The closing
issues not resolved are whether or not caribou, moose, and
Sitka black-tailed deer are going to be included under the
definition of game farm animal. He said the Administration
does not want those animals classified as a game farm animal
but rather wants to allow people with those animals to go
through the animal husbandry permit process. Once they
qualified and complied with that process, they could then
apply to have those animals added to the list. Senator
Miller's office was concerned the statute did not contain
strong enough language to ever force that to happen and
those people would be stuck under a never ending permit,
never being allowed to gain ownership after investing a lot
of time and money.
MR. WARD noted that both versions of the bill which have
been presented accomplish the same thing. For moose,
caribou, and Sitka black-tailed deer, a person must go
through the animal husbandry permit process and comply with
strict guidelines, which will be established by ADF&G,
before there is any opportunity to own the animals. He felt
there is too much to gain in order to lose the proposed
legislation due to differences of opinion on the way the
wording should be presented.
Number 362
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Mr. Ward if he is interested in
farming any of the new proposed game farm animals.
MR. WARD replied he is not, as he is happy with the animals
he is currently raising.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Mr. Ward how many animals does
he currently farm.
Number 370
MR. WARD replied he has 67 elk farmed on 160 acres
currently, with another 80 acres to be added soon.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON wondered if moose will require
additional acreage.
MR. WARD said he does not have the knowledge to answer the
question but in talking with other people, his understanding
is that moose require a lot of land to support themselves,
especially since they are a solitary animal.
Number 385
WAYNE REGELIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION, DNR, stated there are many good provisions in
SB 46 which will help the game farm industry, and the
department supports those provisions. The department is
concerned, however, with the inclusion of Sitka black-tailed
deer, caribou, and moose in the definition of game farm
animals and believes it is wise to keep those three species
separate. He pointed out what the department attempted to
keep in SB 46 is to allow moose, caribou, and Sitka black-
tailed deer to be held by individuals under an experimental
animal husbandry permit under the department's authority.
Regulations would then be developed by DNR to establish
guidelines under which the three species could be added if
they are successful as game farm species.
MR. REGELIN stated the department feels it is important to
keep game farming separate from the experimental animal
husbandry permits. He said he was also confused on some of
the language contained in the new version because there is a
mingling of Title 30 and Title 16; one is DNR regulations
and one is ADF&G regulations, and statutory responsibilities
are contained in both titles. He felt it will be a legal
morass for DNR and ADF&G to have overlapping and confusing
authorities under game farming.
MR. REGELIN said another concern of the department is that
under the experimental animal husbandry permit, ownership is
retained by the state but would allow the meat to be sold.
The department is concerned about allowing state property to
be sold. He felt there is a possibility of resolving the
issues and concerns relating to SB 46 or if they cannot be
resolved, let the legislative process take its course.
Number 429
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE agreed with the concern regarding the
sale of state property, especially something as perishable
as meat.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS felt there are going to be incentives to
poach animals.
MR. REGELIN responded the Division of Fish and Wildlife
Protection have concerns regarding that issue also.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN requested that at some point a
version of SB 46 be presented which represents the point of
view expressed by Mr. Regelin.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY stated in 1979 he struggled with the
same issues being discussed in regard to farming bison and
some of the same arguments were heard. He pointed out that
bison has become a good animal for farming and because some
people feel it is not economically feasible to farm moose
does not mean that someone should not be allowed to try.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS expressed concern regarding poaching of
Sitka black-tailed deer.
Number 488
LEE PUTNAM, REPRESENTATIVE, KETCHIKAN SPORTS AND WILDLIFE
CLUB, testified via teleconference and stated SB 46 provides
an opportunity for potential income in rural areas which
presently have few opportunities to make money. The farming
of game animals, with proper restraint, can be and has been
profitable in other countries. If the rules and regulations
are strict enough to protect the resource, but loose enough
to allow game farmers to profit, the Ketchikan Sports and
Wildlife Club feels that game farming in Alaska can be
successful. The club urges passage of SB 46.
ROBERT SHUMAKER, PALMER, testified via teleconference and
stated he is in the cattle and swine business and is
interested in developing an additional business in game
animals. He felt the option of game farming should be open
to any member of the public. He expressed concern with
lines 20 and 21, on page 5 of the original version of the
bill which states, "A person who receives moose under (a) of
this section after the effective date of this subsection may
not raise moose and domestic livestock in the same fenced
area." He said if the intent is to domesticate animals, he
felt there is a need to be able to farm game farm and
domesticated animals together.
MR. SHUMAKER said reliance on the veterinarian is important,
but he felt there should be something in the bill which
provides for the use of information ADF&G already has since
they are already farming moose.
Number 572
LEONARD MOFFITT, PALMER, testified via teleconference and
agreed with Mr. Shumaker's comments. He stated that minimum
government involvement is necessary for economic success in
game farming. He felt game farming can help offset the
decline in oil revenue.
SANDRA ARNOLD, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA WILDLIFE ALLIANCE,
testified via teleconference and stated the Alliance
strongly opposes moose farming, or the farming of any other
wildlife species. The long-term implications of allowing
moose farming have not been considered. She stressed SB 46
is shortsighted, speculative, largely experimental, and made
with the well being and profits of a few people in mind,
rather than Alaska or its wildlife as a whole.
MS. ARNOLD pointed out that just like any industry, wildlife
farmers will have to be monitored, regulated, administered,
registered, inspected and tested; paperwork, procedures, and
staff time must be established or increased, and there are
many questions which SB 46 fails to consider. She asked
what is the possibility of disease transfer from farmed
moose to other wildlife. She said nobody knows, but the few
lines of this bill which require the commissioner and
veterinarians to prevent the spread of pests and diseases
give little indication how that will be accomplished, or if
it is even possible. She felt no matter how well DEC does
their job of controlling disease, the risk of disease is not
zero and SB 46 has no provisions for what will happen when
disease problems occur. She expressed concern about the
risk to Alaska's wildlife which farming might pose.
MS. ARNOLD asked how animals will be kept separate from wild
stock. How will bears, wolves, and other predators be kept
from entering moose farms, which they will naturally be
attracted to, and will farmers be allowed to shoot bears
that enter the farms. She stated SB 46 requires farmers to
build a fence to keep animals in and out, but it goes on to
say that the commissioner must be notified when an animal
escapes and enters, so the bill itself acknowledges that
fences are not foolproof.
MS. ARNOLD wondered why Alaska ignores the track record of
moose farming in other locations. She asked who will absorb
the costs of failures and what are the possibilities for
increased poaching of moose, if the sale of meat will be
made legal. She inquired what costs are involved in
certifying, inspecting, and establishing a bureaucracy to
deal with all that. She questioned where the fiscal note
is. She stated the Alliance cannot support any version of
SB 46 and asked the committee to respect Alaska's wildlife
and reject the bill.
MS. ARNOLD expressed dissatisfaction with not having the
latest version of SB 46. She was also unhappy that meetings
without public participation were held in negotiating the
latest version of SB 46.
Number 659
BOB LOCHNER, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and
stated he has heard many concerns regarding the wildlife.
He expressed concern with the public safety aspect. He has
seen many newspaper articles about vehicles hitting moose
and moose being destroyed in residential areas. He felt it
is important for moose farms to exist to provide the option
of transporting nuisance animals to game farms in order to
take them away from residential areas. He added that
construction ongoing in residential areas involves clearing
away a lot of timber and willows grow up, attracting moose.
He stressed people are creating the problem, but have no
solutions. He stated SB 46 is the only viable solution.
TAPE 94-28, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said when there is a nuisance moose in
Anchorage, the authorities try and chase it away, they do
not try to pick it up physically and carry it away. He
asked what are the chances for survival when tranquilizing
and relocating a moose.
MR. REGELIN responded in the majority of cases, the
department tries to move an animal by chasing it away;
rarely does the department attempt to move it by drugging it
and transporting it. He did not have any numbers on how
many are handled, but estimated the department handles
several hundred complaints each year in Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked how successful is the department
in tranquilizing and moving an animal and having the animal
survive.
MR. REGELIN replied if the animal is tranquilized and left
where it is, there is high success; if the animal is moved
there are problems.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if there is a need to move the
animal does the department have to kill it.
MR. REGELIN said the chances are 50/50 or less.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked what the cost is for
tranquilizing and moving a moose.
MR. REGELIN replied the drugs cost $150 and the time
involved would be one-half day for two people.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY stated the person farming would
probably be happy to take the moose by tranquilizing and
hauling it.
CAROL JENSEN, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and
stated if ADF&G personnel, who are skilled in tranquilizing
animals, do not feel comfortable about tranquilizing and
moving animals, she did not believe laymen should be allowed
to do so. She expressed opposition to SB 46 and said the
bill does not give any consideration to long-term adverse
effects. She pointed out the state is totally incapable of
monitoring, regulating, and ensuring the welfare and humane
treatment of animals in captivity as illustrated by the
Alaska Zoo, fur farms, dairy farming projects, etc. There
is not one example confirming that the state has the time,
money or resources to get involved in what it will take to
assure animal welfare. She stated the cost is too high and
with the state's budget cutbacks, it cannot be done.
MS. JENSEN stated if SB 46 passes, in addition to having an
annual license fee, there should be an inspection of the
facility before the license or permit is automatically
renewed. She pointed out there is only one veterinarian and
he has never taken any action before until a critical stage
was reached. She noted SB 46 encourages massive breeding
which could quickly and easily get out of hand, resulting in
the animal population becoming too large for the facility
and becoming too much of a financial burden on the owner.
This would further result in inadequate care, excessive
slaughter, elimination of disease control, and possible
total abandonment of the animals which has happened before.
MS. JENSEN felt the experimenting aspect of the bill could
result in medical or drug experimentation which could be bad
for the animals welfare. She expressed concern with
sections in the bill which are contradictory. She stated SB
46 does not allow for any public knowledge or comments. She
agreed with comments made by Ms. Arnold. She again
expressed opposition to SB 46.
Number 070
STANLEY NED, REPRESENTATIVE, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE (TCC),
testified via teleconference and stated TCC's first priority
is to protect the natural resources the members depend on.
TCC cannot support any version of SB 46. He said their
opposition is based on their religious beliefs regarding the
handling of wild game. Native law demands that wild game be
treated with respect and must be kept wild and untouched by
human hands. He stated other problems with SB 46 include
the threat of disease. Infection can be transmitted from
domestic stock through water, feces, and other sources. He
gave various examples of disease transmittals which have
occurred. He stated SB 46 will be costly to the state,
including many hidden costs. He said TCC is adamantly
opposed to SB 46.
JEREMY WELTON, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
asked committee members to pass SB 46.
OPAL WELTON, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
stated ADF&G wishes to hold SB 46 by providing
misinformation as they have done for the past six years.
She said many testimonies have stated that ADF&G is "far
less than honest"; "they won't tell the whole truth"; "their
opinion is tainted"; etc. She stated there are two opinions
from the Attorney General stating that it is already legal
to raise and own game animals under existing permits. Yet
ADF&G says it is illegal and implies that it is immoral for
Alaskans to help and care for orphaned, starving, injured,
and misplaced animals. She pointed out that the Interior
has been asking for the chance to care for moose for over 40
years. She urged passage of SB 46.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced SB 46 will be put into a
subcommittee to resolve the problems involved. He appointed
Representatives Carney, Davies, and Mulder to the
subcommittee with Representative Carney to serve as Chair.
Number 150
DOUG WELTON, FAIRBANKS, distributed several photos of moose
in various captive situations. He said the state has done
research and has information supporting small scale farming
of moose. He pointed out that moose have been milked
untethered and can be called in by a whistle and he did not
see any harm in his family having two or three moose on
their 40 acres to provide a fresh supply of meat and milk.
He thought the public safety issue is a problem in that
moose are being killed on highways and the railroad by the
hundreds which he felt is a lousy management technique. He
stated the animals can be removed, put on farms and can be
the breeding stock for a future industry for rural Alaskans.
He stated ADF&G is doing nothing. It has been recommended
that people be allowed to remove animals regardless of age,
putting them to better use.
MR. WELTON said deer have been raised throughout the U.S.
and are being sold. He noted he can go to almost any state
and buy Sitka black-tailed deer but he cannot buy one in
Alaska where they come from. He stated moose are being
bred, sold, and being held in captive situations. He
pointed out that ADF&G has recognized moose as a popular
exhibit animal and has gone to great lengths to make them
such. A pellet ration has been developed in the state that
once a wild animal gets in and eats the ration, they do not
want to leave because it is so good. Game farming will be a
boon to the local farmer of carrots, cabbage, lettuce,
beets, potatoes, etc. He urged the committee to pass SB 46
Number 192
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt Mr. Welton's techniques on
SB 46 do not work to his benefit. He stated that Mr. Welton
and his family insulting ADF&G and calling ADF&G personnel,
they disagree with, liars and attacking the committee
process, which is sincere in resolving issues, is not going
to serve his purpose.
HB 238 Oil/Hazardous Substance Release Response Fund
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated it is the committee's fifth hearing
on HB 238. He said the committee met the previous Wednesday
and discussed draft version Y.
Number 224
MEREDITH MARSHALL, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference
and stated she is not an expert nor does she fully
understand the proposed legislation. She stated there is
not a benefits clause in the legislation and she felt there
is a need to set up monitoring and spill response standards
along the coast as well as trained personnel in spill
response. After that has been accomplished, (indiscernible)
a front for major incidents, the fund should
(indiscernible).
Number 238
STAN STEPHENS, PRESIDENT, REGIONAL CITIZENS' ADVISORY
COUNCIL OF PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND (RCAC), testified via
teleconference and stated there are two points RCAC wants to
emphasize. First, the current system works for responding
to spills and accessing the Oil and Hazardous Substance
Release Response Fund. The second is to clarify
misinformation regarding the adequacy of a 2 or 2.5 cent
surcharge to fund the DEC spill prevention and response
programs. He pointed out that in hearings on SB 215 and HB
238, no reasons were given for limiting access to response
funds for catastrophic spills. There is no evidence that
DEC has misused response funds in the course of responding
to spills. He said in the last five years, less than one
percent of response fund expenditures have been used by DEC
to pay for spill response. All other expenditures of
response funds have been by legislative appropriation for
uses authorized in statute.
MR. STEPHENS stated most spills in Alaska are below the
catastrophic threshold of 4.2 million gallons. The Exxon
Valdez spill is the only spill which exceeded that amount
and approximately 2,000 spills occur each year. He noted
DEC responds to half of those spills each year. With the
spill prevention and response programs developed since the
Exxon Valdez spill, hopefully the state will never
experience another catastrophic spill. He stressed it is
certain that the state will continue to experience the
smaller, chronic spills as long as Alaska is an oil
producing, refining, and transporting state. Therefore, to
protect the health of residents and the environment, on
which the tourism and fishing industries and subsistence
users depend, the state must continue to diligently prevent
and respond to spills.
Number 267
MR. STEPHENS stated the quest to reduce response fund
expenditures by reducing access to response funds for spill
response has no justifiable basis. It also is contrary to
one of the primary purposes for which the fund was
established and the surcharge was enacted. He said despite
some revisionist history by proponents of the concept, the
surcharge was not intended to fund exclusively catastrophic
spill response. He stressed the current system works well.
If anything, it is likely that most communities would
criticize DEC for not utilizing the response fund more often
in responding to more spills.
MR. STEPHENS said he would like to address misinformation
regarding the adequacy of a 2 or 2.5 cent surcharge to fund
spill prevention and preparedness programs. He noted the
Exxon Corporation has been distributing a chart and
testifying as to the adequacy of a 2 or 2.5 cent surcharge.
In their chart and testimony, they cite a report prepared in
December 1992 for RCAC as justification for the adequacy of
a 2 or 2.5 cent surcharge for spill prevention and
preparedness programs. He stated the use of the RCAC report
to justify the adequacy of a 2 or 2.5 cent surcharge for
spill prevention programs is, at best, a complete misuse and
manipulation of information presented in the report.
MR. STEPHENS continued that the RCAC report merely presents
appropriations for fiscal years l991 through 1993 for a
portion of DEC programs. There was no attempt to analyze
the actual costs of running a fully implemented spill
prevention and response program. Instead, the report shows
that despite the existence of the response fund, funding for
spill prevention and preparedness programs has remained
relatively constant.
Number 294
MR. STEPHENS stated the Exxon chart shows all response fund
appropriations for all authorized uses of the fund for
fiscal year 1990 through 1994, but compares it only to a
portion of the fiscal notes of those authorized uses.
Absent is the fiscal note for the ferry despite the jump in
the appropriation line reflected by that use. He stressed
the chart compares apples and oranges and is both incorrect
and misleading. In the chart presented by the Exxon
Corporation, the RCAC report is cited as the source which
suggests that RCAC produced the chart. He noted there is no
identification of Exxon as the chart preparer or the source
of most of the information in the chart. He felt it is
unprofessional to produce false information and cite another
entity as the source. He thought the Exxon Corporation
should apologize to RCAC and withdraw the misinformation
from the legislative record.
MR. STEPHENS said accurate budget information presented in
DEC fiscal notes shows that neither a 2 or 2.5 cent
surcharge provides sufficient funding for prevention
programs at current oil production levels and the problem
becomes more acute as North Slope production declines. The
splitting of the nickel proposal will force a continued
reduction in DEC programs or the supplementing of general
fund money at the same time state revenues are also
declining. He reminded committee members that interest on
the response fund balance is merely general funds by another
name.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY stated he cannot identify the chart
prepared by Exxon which Mr. Stephens discussed.
MR. STEPHENS said it is the chart which they have been
showing at other committee hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked Mr. Stephens to send the House
Resources Committee a copy of the chart.
Number 329
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked Mr. Stephens to comment on local
depots and response corps.
MR. STEPHENS stated DEC is getting to the point of looking
at putting them in place. Communities like Kodiak, Cordova,
and Native villages are all at the point where the response
depots and training are necessary, but he thought it is
(indiscernible) in the coastal areas.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that part of the 470 fund was
established for other DEC tasks such as underground tank
storage rehabilitation, hatcheries, etc., and to maintain
the system as it is will undermine the spill response
capability. He asked Mr. Stephens if by testifying in
support of keeping the 470 fund as it is, is he endorsing
spending money for projects not closely related to crude oil
spills.
MR. STEPHENS replied yes and felt the 470 fund should come
from the tax on the oil industry.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated another place to tax is the
users of the petroleum products.
MR. STEPHENS did not agree. He stressed if one looks at the
overall use of fuel and where the major problems could
occur, overseeing a small leak in a tank is very small
compared to other jobs needed. He felt the oil industry
needs to be responsible for all fuel spills throughout the
state.
Number 395
NANCY LETHCOE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA WILDERNESS, RECREATION, AND
TOURISM ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference and stated
the association does not believe any legislation is needed
to change the management or funding of the 470 fund.
However, if the legislature is determined to pass a bill,
the association feels version Y is appropriate. She was
involved with many teleconferences in connection with the
original 470 fund bill and recalled limiting the fund to
catastrophic spills was discussed. However, that was just
one perspective on the issue. The prevailing legislation
left it open to use for a large variety of other things.
MS. LETHCOE stated HB 238, version Y goes a long way toward
continuing to adequately fund the state's spill prevention
and response program while (indiscernible) the oil industry.
She said current U.S. law does not give tourism businesses
any legal standing to file for economic damages sustained as
a result of a spill. Tourism businesses eat the money which
is lost. Therefore, strong spill prevention response
programs are the tourism industry's only protection. She
noted on the concern about spill prevention and clean up of
contaminated sights in rural Alaska, there are not many jobs
for people living in rural Alaska. A growing number of
rural communities have contacted the association for
information on ecotourism, in hopes of getting ecotourism-
type businesses. She pointed out that contaminated sites
and the potential for oil spills poses problems for their
development.
MS. LETHCOE stated drinking water contaminated by fuel
spills poses problems for some communities. In one
particular community, a restaurant is importing water
because of a fuel spill in that community which raises costs
and the difficulty of doing business. Another community
inherited a contaminated site when it was relocated
following the 1964 earthquake. The village is located in an
area with tremendous tourism potential, but before it can
develop tourism facilities it must clean up the contaminated
site. In rural Alaska, there are many aging fuel storage
areas which are often located adjacent to rivers. She
stressed funding is needed to repair or replace them before
they cause spills which will create economic, social, and
environmental disasters for the local residents, communities
downstream, and tourism businesses along those streams.
MS. LETHCOE said the 470 fund provides funding for the clean
up of contaminated sites and the prevention of oil spills.
It makes good economic sense for the state to continue the
present funding mechanism for that program. The association
also supports depots and volunteer response corps. Both
were strongly recommended by the Alaska Oil Spill
Commission. She stressed the state does (indiscernible) for
volunteers. As the state budget declines, volunteers are
one way to make up budget shortfalls and help the people
most likely to be adversely affected by spills, if they are
themselves well trained, adequately equipped, and prepared
to respond. She stressed trained volunteers are important
for local villages where it may take time to get spill
response teams from the state or a spiller into those
communities.
Number 475
THEA THOMAS, CORDOVA, testified via teleconference and
stated she did not feel any legislative action is needed
concerning the 470 fund. She felt the present system works
but if the legislature finds it necessary to provide tax
relief for oil companies, version Y is the only fair and
balanced option concerning the issue. She stated version Y
addresses the oil industry's request for tax relief while
maintaining the state's ability to prevent, prepare for and
respond to oil and hazardous substance spills. Version Y
also provides an atmosphere of cooperation and compromise
between the oil industry and the people of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he also sees the responsibility of
the oil companies to provide financial support for the clean
up of oil spills but wondered if Ms. Thomas would agree that
the people who ultimately use the fuel also have a
responsibility and should pay increased taxes to cover
potential spills.
MS. THOMAS stated she agrees with Mr. Stephens that most
spills are chronic small spills not connected with users.
The spills are connected with the transport of oil and in
the production and development of oil.
Number 509
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated there are many people
including himself and the Administration who do support an
increase in the fuel tax, but that does not translate that
another tax has to be replaced. He felt the state is in a
position where new taxes are going to be needed.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed, but stated she would like to
see a portion of any fuel tax go into the 470 fund.
KELLY WEAVERLING, CORDOVA, testified via teleconference and
stated during the Exxon Valdez oil spill, he organized and
operated the wildlife rescue fleet. He is very aware of the
value of the 470 fund and stated the current legislation is
fine, requiring no change. If a change is necessary, he
prefers version Y.
SALLY KABISCH, HOMER, testified via teleconference and
stated she supports the existing structure of the oil and
hazardous substance release response fund. She said there
has been talk about splitting the nickel and she opposes
splitting the nickel, because it will limit response to
spills which are not catastrophic. She pointed out that the
less than catastrophic spills account for most of Alaska's
spills and can often be devastating. Limiting cleanup for
large spills puts Alaska's natural resources at great risk.
Rather than splitting nickels, doubling the dollars going
into the hazardous and oil response fund should be
discussed. She noted that coastal communities like Homer,
are locally unprepared to respond to a spill. She urged the
committee to reject revisions to the 470 fund and focus on
the real business, which is not arguing over nickels, but
ensuring that Alaska's preparedness and response to spills
matches the value of the resources vulnerable to those
spills.
MS. KABISCH felt there is a need to continue to require that
spill contingency funds are up to date at least on an annual
basis, and also felt there is a need to free up the Division
of Spill, Prevention, and Response to do the work it is
supposed to be doing, preventing spills and cleaning them
up. She said there is a need for well trained and fully
funded response and prevention programs in all coastal
communities and other communities as well. She pointed out
that people have been waiting since 1986 for the volunteer
corps and depots to be put in place.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER thought it is hypocritical when people
say it is not broken, do not fix it but on the other hand,
they are saying the state is no more prepared today than it
was six years ago. He stated the committee's mission is to
try and evaluate what progress has been made in the last six
years, if the state is more prepared and try to revisit the
issues to ensure the state is more prepared and putting the
470 funds to the appropriate end.
MS. KABISCH agreed and stated there is a need to free up DEC
and other state agencies to do the work they are charged to
do. She felt you do not fix it by cutting taxes on the oil
industry and cutting the funding to the program.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated the whole issue of whether
or not the state is using the 470 fund most appropriately is
also an issue before the DEC subcommittees.
Number 638
PAUL SEATON, HOMER, testified via teleconference and stated
having been through the Exxon Valdez spill, he knows that
spill prevention is the most important aspect. He said the
(indiscernible) of catastrophic spills is not the way to do
it and if anything, more money should be spent on spill
prevention, spill training, spill response, and equipment in
local areas. He expressed opposition to changing the 470
fund with the restrictions being sought for only
catastrophic response.
KRISTIN STAHL-JOHNSON, CITY OF KODIAK'S REPRESENTATIVE,
REGIONAL CITIZENS' ADVISORY COUNCIL OF PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND,
testified via teleconference and stated although she
supports version Y, she does not feel there is a need for a
bill since DEC is administratively fixing the real problems
identified with the use of the 470 fund. She said of all
the versions proposed thus far, version Y is the most
reasonable in addressing public protection issues and the
industry's concerns. She expressed concern that version Y
gives the oil industry credit for everything presently in
the 470 fund, including the (indiscernible) non-nickel fund.
MS. STAHL-JOHNSON is also concerned that version Y gives
credit for penalties and fines paid toward the fund which is
an anti-incentive for avoiding penalties. She stressed DEC
needs the latitude to build strong prevention, preparedness,
and response centers around the state and the centers need
to be integrated with what the coastal and small communities
need in (indiscernible) programs. In regard to comments
made that the communities are not any better prepared to
respond to spills than five years ago, she said DEC has been
hamstrung by what can and cannot be done with the 470 fund
because of the issues being debated. There is a need to be
able to fully implement the programs and she stressed there
is preparedness and response capabilities in all regions.
She commented in regard to the purposes of the funds and who
should be paying for the response capabilities, the
Hazardous Substance Spill Technology Review Council Report
stated that 80 percent of spills in Alaska, which have been
responded to, involve petroleum products and 20 percent are
hazardous substance spill responses.
TAPE 94-29, SIDE A
Number 000
MS. STAHL-JOHNSON said she does not believe there is a need
for a bill to change the problems, but rather there is a
need to tighten up, focus the programs, and (indiscernible)
to the protection that the 470 fund supposedly promises
them.
KEVIN HARUN, DIRECTOR, ALASKA CENTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT,
testified via teleconference and stated the 470 fund does
not need changing. He said the fifth anniversary of the
Exxon Valdez oil spill is March 24 and he felt that what was
learned from that spill is that once a spill happens, there
is not a lot one can do about it. He stressed one can do a
lot to prevent spills and that is one of the reasons the
spill prevention response fund established the nickel a
barrel tax. The spill prevention response fund was
established before the spill and the tax came as a result of
the crisis which emerged. He said often it is much easier
to motivate public policy after a crisis. He expressed
concern that everyone is forgetting the lessons of the
spill.
MR. HARUN stated his organization opposes Representative
Green's version of HB 238 and commends Chairman William's
attempt to balance the public's desire for spill prevention
and response with the industry's desire for tax relief. He
felt the legislature's role is to advance the public's
interest. He said the industry should not be given credit
for fines and penalties and the industry should not be given
credit for all of the money which is currently in the fund,
because 40 percent of the funds came from non-nickel
sources. He pointed out that DEC has fixed most of the
region's problems. He added that his organization does not
perceive most of the money for spill prevention and response
coming from the nickel a barrel tax and he asked where the
money will come from.
Number 042
RANDY MCGOVERN, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
stated he is not convinced that HB 238 is necessary. The
current version of SB 215 and all versions of HB 238, except
version Y, are unacceptable. He said more vigilant
(indiscernible) should be implemented especially for
(indiscernible) spills. He pointed out that a recent spill
of 2,500 gallons occurred during a spill drill; another
spill released 15,000 gallons and what is scary is the pipe
was only two years old and the weight had not been placed in
the pipe to alleviate a problem already known to exist; and
even more scary is that the alarms were turned off and the
spill was discovered by accident. He stated also scary is
that the well was producing mostly gas for production for
oil from another well, and had that well been producing oil,
a massive catastrophic spill would have occurred.
MR. MCGOVERN stated it has been said that $112 million has
been collected from the nickels and stressed that is not
correct. At the inception of the 470 fund, $30 million had
already been acquired before the Exxon Valdez spill through
fines, cost recoveries, general funds from 1986 through
1989. For every dollar spent for prevention (indiscernible)
$100 for response or remediation. If the (indiscernible) of
the 470 fund was done four times by legislation and 17 times
by appropriation. He said one fact sheet illustrated that
DEC has spent 0.9 percent of the available fund but progress
still went forward. It was accomplished by dedicated,
informed, compassionate people. Without knowledge and
training, terrestrial spills will result from pesticides and
petroleum products. Visions in the future gave the state
double hulled tankers. Visions of the future gave the
state command and control vessels. Visions beyond the
future gives the state (indiscernible) technology. He asked
where are the visions for terrestrial spills.
MR. MCGOVERN said the drafter of the Y version at least
recognizes that you do not throw the baby out with the bath
water. He stressed that present versions of both SB 215 and
HB 238, not version Y, should be killed. (Indiscernible) of
HB 238 would create a bookkeeping nightmare and added that
four separate accounts would have to be established and
supervised. (Indiscernible) the 470 fund presents another
problem. Consumers, the public, and small businesses would
have to pay the bill. He stated glamorous, glitzy, feel
good television commercials do not give the state the
ability to protect the life and health of its citizens.
Maintaining the 470 fund as is will. He urged committee
members not to pass HB 238.
Number 079
HILLARY SCHAEFER, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference
and expressed concern with the array of bills moving so
quickly through the legislature. She is disappointed with
what SB 215 and early versions of HB 238 have to offer. She
appreciated Chairman Williams looking at the protection
which pollution prevention and response programs offer now
and in the future. (Indiscernible) hazardous waste, it is
crucial that these programs remain in place for oil spill
response and prevention, as well as for hazardous waste
spill response. She stressed that Chairman William's
version is the only version which is (indiscernible) for the
state pollution prevention and response programs and to the
oil industry. She said if passage of a bill is necessary,
she supports the Y version of HB 238.
Number 090
KARL BECKER, REPRESENTATIVE, PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND
CONSERVATION ALLIANCE, testified via teleconference and
stated he is incredulous that on the fifth anniversary of
the Exxon Valdez oil spill the state is contemplating
weakening the provisions of the 470 fund. He felt it is
dangerous to do that at this time. If anything, the state
should be looking at more secure ways to protect the
environment from oil and other hazardous substance spills.
He stated there is no reason to tamper with the present 470
fund but if the legislature is determined to do something,
he strongly endorses Chairman William's version Y.
Number 126
DAN DEL MISSIER, HOMER, testified via teleconference and
stated he is dismayed that consideration is being made to
change the 470 fund. He urged committee members to leave
the 470 fund as is.
ALAN PARKS, HOMER, testified via teleconference and said he
would like to see the 470 fund left as is. He stressed
there is a need to concentrate on prevention and
preparedness. He felt the nickel surcharge is needed. He
described a drill which took place in Homer and pointed out
that proper equipment and proper vessels are not in place to
handle any spills.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced that HB 404 will not be heard on
Friday because the sponsor has asked it to be held. He
stated the committee will hear HB 447 on Friday, March 11 at
8:15 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting
at 10:03 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|