Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/03/1995 08:13 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
May 3, 1995
8:13 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Eileen MacLean
Representative Irene Nicholia
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CSSJR 27(RES): Endorsing development of the Fall Creek
hydroelectric project near Gustavus.
CSSJR 27(RES) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CSSB 77(FIN) am: "An Act relating to management of game
populations, to the powers and duties of the
commissioner of fish and game, and to the
division of game."
HCS CSSB 77(RES) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CSSB 16(FIN) am: "An Act relating to the University of Alaska and
university land, authorizing the University of
Alaska to select additional state public domain
land, and defining net income from the University
of Alaska's endowment trust fund as 'university
receipts' subject to prior legislative
appropriation."
HCS CSSB 16(RES) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
WITNESS REGISTER
SANDY BURD, Legislative Secretary
Senator Fred Zharoff
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 121
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-3473
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor SJR 27
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 513
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 77
DON CORNELIUS, Representative
Defenders of Wildlife
P.O. Box 1727
Petersburg, AK 99833
Phone: 772-4864
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
WAYNE REGELIN, Acting Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 465-4190
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
JACK PHELPS, Legislative Assistant
Representative Bill Williams
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 124
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-3715
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question regarding SB 77
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant
Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 432
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question regarding SB 77
BRUCE CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant
Representative Pete Kelly
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 513
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question regarding SB 77
SARA HANNAN, Executive Director
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
NICO BUS, Legislative Liaison
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-2406
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered question regarding SB 16
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President
University Relations
University of Alaska
3rd Floor Signers' Hall
Fairbanks, AK 99774
Phone: 474-7211
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered question regarding SB 16
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 27
SHORT TITLE: ENDORSING FALLS CREEK HYDROPOWER PROJECT
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) ZHAROFF, Rieger, Duncan, Taylor, Leman,
Frank;
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Mackie
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/25/95 1229 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/25/95 1229 (S) RESOURCES
04/26/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
04/27/95 (S) RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
04/27/95 1269 (S) RES RPT CS 6DP NEW TITLE
04/27/95 1269 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR)
04/28/95 1309 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/28/95
04/28/95 1319 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/28/95 1320 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/28/95 1320 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
04/28/95 1320 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR 27(RES)
04/28/95 1320 (S) COSPONSOR(S): RIEGER, DUNCAN, TAYLOR,
04/28/95 1320 (S) LEMAN, FRANK
04/28/95 1320 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
04/28/95 1323 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/29/95 1659 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/29/95 1659 (H) RESOURCES
04/29/95 1681 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): MACKIE
05/03/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 77
SHORT TITLE: INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SHARP
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/08/95 207 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/08/95 207 (S) RESOURCES
03/10/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/10/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/15/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/20/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/20/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/22/95 744 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP 1DNP 1NR NEW TITLE
03/22/95 745 (S) FN TO SB (F&G)
03/22/95 745 (S) FN TO CS (F&G)
03/22/95 745 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
04/24/95 (S) FIN AT 11:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/26/95 1247 (S) FIN RPT CS 4DP 3NR NEW TITLE
04/26/95 1247 (S) PREVIOUS FN (F&G #2)
04/27/95 (S) RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
04/28/95 1309 (S) RULES RPT 2CAL 1 OTHER REC 1DNP
04/28/95 1313 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/28/95 1314 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/28/95 1314 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y12 N7 E1
04/28/95 1314 (S) THIRD READING 4/29 CALENDAR
04/29/95 1350 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 77(FIN)
04/29/95 1351 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 1 FLD Y8 N10 E2
04/29/95 1351 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 2 FLD Y8 N10 E2
04/29/95 1352 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 3 FLD Y9 N9 E2
04/29/95 1352 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 4 UNAN CONSENT
04/29/95 1352 (S) AM NO 4 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/29/95 1353 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
04/29/95 1353 (S) PASSED Y13 N5 E2
04/29/95 1353 (S) Lincoln NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/30/95 1368 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
04/30/95 1369 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y13 N5 E2
04/30/95 1369 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/30/95 1687 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/30/95 1687 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
05/03/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 16
SHORT TITLE: INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) FRANK, Kelly, Sharp, Rieger, Miller
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 17 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/6/95
01/16/95 17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 17 (S) CRA, RES, FIN
01/20/95 60 (S) COSPONSOR(S): RIEGER
02/15/95 (S) CRA AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/20/95 (S) CRA AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/20/95 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
02/22/95 365 (S) CRA RPT CS 2DP 3NR SAME TITLE
02/22/95 366 (S) FISCAL NOTES (F&G, DNR, UA)
02/22/95 366 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES (REV-2)
03/03/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/10/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/10/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/17/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/17/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/20/95 695 (S) RES RPT 3DP 1DNP 1NR (CRA)CS
03/20/95 696 (S) FN (DNR)
03/20/95 696 (S) PREVIOUS FNS (F&G, DNR, UA)
03/20/95 696 (S) ZERO FNS (REV-2)
03/23/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/23/95 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/27/95 788 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 1DNP 2NR SAME TITLE
03/27/95 789 (S) FNS TO CS (DNR, F&G)
03/27/95 789 (S) ZERO FN (REV)
03/27/95 789 (S) PREVIOUS FNS (UA, DNR)
03/27/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/28/95 (S) RLS AT 12:20 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
03/28/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/10/95 956 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/10/95
04/10/95 958 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/10/95 958 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/10/95 958 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/10/95 958 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
04/10/95 958 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 16(FIN) AM
04/10/95 958 (S) COSPONSOR: MILLER
04/10/95 959 (S) (S) ADOPTED ZHAROFF LETTER OF INTENT
04/10/95 959 (S) PASSED Y11 N9
04/10/95 959 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/11/95 983 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
04/11/95 984 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/12/95 1276 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/12/95 1277 (H) CRA, RESOURCES, FINANCE
04/25/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/26/95 1557 (H) CRA REFERRAL WAIVED
04/27/95 (H) RES AT 04:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/27/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/28/95 (H) RES AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/28/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/01/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
05/01/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/02/95 (H) RES AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 17
05/02/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/03/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-62, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman
Green at 8:13 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Williams, Ogan, Austerman, Davies, and Kott.
Members absent were Representatives Barnes, MacLean, and Nicholia.
SJR 27 - ENDORSING FALL CREEK HYDROPOWER PROJECT
SANDY BURD, LEGISLATIVE SECRETARY TO SENATOR FRED ZHAROFF, PRIME
SPONSOR, told committee members they heard the house version of
this resolution a few days ago. She said SJR 27 was introduced to
help Gustavus address long-term energy needs. She stated there is
a stream close to town--Fall Creek--which lends itself to
harnessing for power generation. The creek is located within the
boundary of Glacier Bay National Park, and therefore, an act of
Congress will be needed to change the land designation so it can be
developed as a power project.
MS. BURD stated the community supports the project. She said the
National Park Service, in a letter of intent, has indicated a
willingness to cooperate in transferring the land designation.
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS made a MOTION to MOVE CSSJR 27(RES), with
attached zero fiscal note, out of committee with individual
recommendations.
CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
SB 77 - INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME
Number 075
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN made a MOTION to CONCEPTUALLY AMEND SB 77
to adopt the language in CSHB 170(RES) to replace the language in
CSSB 77(FIN) am.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated the committee had four hearings on HB
170.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY said the sponsor, Representative Bert
Sharp, does not object to adopting the language in CSHB 170(RES).
Number 122
DON CORNELIUS, REPRESENTATIVE, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE (DOW),
testified via teleconference and stated he is a professional
wildlife biologist who worked for the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G) for 25 years. He said DOW opposes SB 77. DOW is
concerned because this legislation was just passed last year. He
pointed out SB 77 will further restrict the Board of Game's
flexibility to achieve its management objectives by restricting
methods or means of taking game, access to game, and human harvest
of game. He equated the situation with driving a new car--you have
a new car but all of a sudden you do not have any brakes or a
clutch.
MR. CORNELIUS said SB 77 seeks to maintain prey populations at
historic high levels. These historic high levels have often been
reached when species exceeded the carrying capacity of the range.
Historically this was, and still is, an unsustainable level. He
reiterated DOW is opposed to SB 77 and said there is a need for
more input from professional biologists from ADF&G.
Number 158
WAYNE REGELIN, ACTING DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,
ADF&G, said the department remains opposed to SB 77, even if
substitute language is used from the house version. The department
feels SB 77 is bad wildlife policy. He stated the department is
working hard to settle the wolf control controversy. In order to
settle the controversy, the department must have a wolf management
policy which is balanced and science based, so the public can
accept it and the Board of Game and the department can use it to
make good decisions.
MR. REGELIN said unfortunately, the debate over the wolf control
issue is being controlled by three to five percent of the people on
each side of the issue with the most extreme views. He stated SB
77 is supported by a very small minority of hunters who are
demanding very high harvest rates for moose and caribou. Their
solution is wide-spread wolf control which will virtually eliminate
wolves, brown bears, and black bears from many areas in Alaska. He
noted it is the same group that is advocating paying bounties for
wolves.
MR. REGELIN stated mainstream hunting groups in Alaska, like the
Safari Clubs, the Alaska Outdoor Council, and local sportsmen
associations, do not endorse SB 77. He said these groups are very
much in favor of intensive management but they are not in favor of
a bill which goes this far. They know that management programs
must have some balance or in the long term, they will damage
hunting. He told committee members the department and the Board of
Game currently have all the tools needed to manage wildlife. He
noted the department and the Board of Game also have the intensive
management bill the legislature passed last year that provides a
clear direction on how the legislature wants them to manage. He
explained the department and the Board of Game is in the process of
implementing that new law and are moving as fast as the law allows.
MR. REGELIN said SB 77 mandates harvest levels which are
unattainable in the northern areas of the state which have hard
winters. Even if all of the predators were removed from these
areas, the department does not believe the harvest levels could be
achieved as mandated in SB 77. He stated if SB 77 does become law,
the department will do its best to implement it. However, based on
his experience over the past five years working in wolf management,
implementing a program in unit 20-A, and going through much effort
to have a wolf control program, he is convinced the public will not
accept the wide-spread wolf control program which SB 77 mandates
because it lacks balance and safeguards for predator populations.
He pointed out the program will be extremely controversial, it will
direct world-wide attention and public ridicule at Alaska and will
result in tremendous amounts of litigation and very likely federal
intervention. In the long term, it will be stopped and the loser
will be the hunter, not only in Alaska, but throughout the U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES OBJECTED to the motion.
Number 240
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there are several differences between the
two versions. He stated in CSHB 170(RES) on page 2, line 9, it
reads "implementing regulations and management plans as
requested..." and the Senate version says "implementing
regulations, programs, and research as requested..." He explained
in CSHB 170(RES) on page 2, line 18, it reads "depletion of the big
game prey population or reduction..." and CSSB 77(FIN) am reads
"depletion of the big game prey population from historic high
levels or reduction..."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN continued with differences between the two
versions. He said in Section 5 of CSHB 170(RES), the word "active"
is used in lines 1, 4, and 13 replacing the word "intensive". On
page 3, lines 6 and 7, the Senate version reads "intensive
management" means management, in accordance with the sustained
yield principle, of an identified..." He noted CSHB 170(RES) has
a repealer section, Section 10, which is not in the Senate version.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Number 336
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN reiterated the motion is beginning with line 1,
replaced the language in CSSB 77(FIN) am with the language
contained in the house version CSHB 170(RES).
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there is a technical problem at hand in that
the committee needs to maintain the same title as the Senate
version and in so doing, would need to insert Section 4 from CSSB
77(FIN) am into HCS CSSB 77(RES). He stated that section says "The
commissioner may, with the approval of the governor, establish a
departmental division of commercial fisheries, a departmental
division of sport fisheries, and other departmental divisions as
are necessary." and eliminates the words, [A DEPARTMENTAL DIVISION
OF GAME,].
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN explained there is a need to adopt Section 4 of
the Senate version, place it in the same position (after Section
3), insert the section after line 11, on page 2 of HCS CSSB 77(RES)
and renumber the subsequent sections. He said that would make the
bill consistent with no title change and would accomplish the
flexibility within the department.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Regelin to give his interpretation of
what Section 4 does.
Number 395
MR. REGELIN stated Section 4 and Section 5 of CSSB 77(FIN) am need
to go together. He said these sections change the name of the
Division of Wildlife Conservation to the Division of Game by
statute. Therefore, if only Section 4 is adopted, then it would be
up to the discretion of the commissioner.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that Mr. Regelin recommends both
sections be included rather than leaving it up to the department.
MR. REGELIN stated the Division of Wildlife Conservation is
responsible for the management of 512 species in Alaska and 87
percent are not hunted.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt the committee could leave the title
alone and not adopt Sections 4 and 5.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said it probably would be an extended title.
Number 425
JACK PHELPS, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TO REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS,
stated in discussions he has had with the drafting attorneys over
this kind of issue, the title has to accurately reflect the
contents of the bill. If a section is taken out which is reflected
in the title, an incorrect title results.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES agreed the title has to accurately reflect
the contents of the bill but he does not believe there is a
requirement that everything in the title be in the bill. He felt
everything in the bill affects the division.
ROD MOURANT, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT,
said in recent conversations with Jack Chenoweth, Legislative Legal
Services, he indicated an overextended title is permissible and
defensible, while too limiting a title is not. Therefore, if the
title mentions things not included in the final version, that is
acceptable.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a MOTION to ADOPT the TITLE in CSSB
77(FIN) am to be used in HCS CSSB 77(RES).
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 480
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 77(RES) on
page 3, lines 17 and 18: delete ", but not including restrictions
on methods or means of taking game, access to game, or human
harvest of game." and insert "and regulations by humans."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY told committee members he objects to the
amendment and reminded them a similar amendment was offered during
deliberations over HB 170. He noted that amendment was defeated.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of
the amendment was Representative Davies. Voting against the
amendment were Representatives Austerman, Kott, Ogan, Williams and
Green. The MOTION FAILED 5-1.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 77(RES) on
page 3, line 29, after the word "shall" delete the words "attempt
to" and insert the words "adopt goals to".
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES thought the committee had adopted a similar
amendment when discussing HB 170. He said testimony at that time
indicated this was a goal which was not realistic.
Number 539
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN said when the committee heard and
discussed HB 170, the amendment just moved was offered and was
accepted.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY disagreed. He stated that amendment was in
connection with page 3, line 29...
BRUCE CAMPBELL, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO REPRESENTATIVE PETE
KELLY, said it was a verbal modification by the Chairman to that
amendment suggesting the word "attempt" and the word "attempt"
satisfied Representative Davies goals and was accepted by the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES WITHDREW his MOTION.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 77(RES) on
page 3, line 13, after the word "management," insert the language
"in accordance with the sustained yield principle,".
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 565
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated he does not support HCS CSSB 77(RES)
because he believes the bill is premature for the many reasons
heard in testimony. He said the legislature passed a sweeping
change to the law last year. He felt the process has not been
allowed to move forward. He noted there have been several
unfortunate instances which have set the process back again and
people are rethinking about how to carry intensive game management
forward. He supports intensive game management as a principle but
believes there is a lot of public interest in how that is done.
There needs to be a lot of public involvement and education in the
process of moving intensive game management forward which takes a
lot of time. He stressed the Board of Game and the department has
not been allowed enough time to implement the law passed last year.
SARA HANNAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY (AEL),
expressed concern about the prematureness of this legislation. She
felt it was an ironic move that in the Senate budget which cuts the
ADF&G budget by $1.8 million, it also puts in $1.2 million for
intensive game management applications. She thought it was totally
inappropriate for the House Resources Committee to endorse those
kinds of efforts when the committee's constituencies are commercial
fishermen, subsistence users, and active hunters. Those
constituencies are going to suffer in their management because of
the decision to try a new tool, tie the hands of the department and
spend $1.2 million on it. She urged the committee to oppose SB 77.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he shared similar concerns mentioned by
Representative Davies. He felt the legislature has not given the
opportunity to see the full effect of the legislation passed last
year. He stated he will not hold the bill up in committee in order
to allow the House to vote on it. He noted unless he is convinced
otherwise, he will probably oppose SB 77 on the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN felt there is legitimacy to the concerns
raised. He wondered if the measures passed last year have been
fully implemented.
MR. REGELIN responded the Board of Game met in March and made
several changes in game management Unit 13 on bear management. The
board made the decision that a reduction in wolf numbers is not
necessary. The board directed the department to draft
implementation plans for four other areas. Those plans will be
considered at the board's October meeting. He noted by law, those
plans have to be written by the department, they have to contain
certain items, and they have to have public hearings. He added
that process is currently ongoing. He explained the board will
decide in October whether or not they want to authorize predator
control in the other areas. He stressed the measures passed last
year are not fully implemented but are in the process as rapidly as
the law allows.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted there have been a series of iterations
on trying to establish a wolf control policy of the Board of Game
and at a number of those stages, in addition to the regulations
proposed to be adopted, there were measures proposed to begin a
dialogue with the general public which would enable a broader
understanding of the scientific basis for active management of
game. He wondered if those measures had been initiated.
MR. REGELIN said that is correct. He stated the department is in
the process of trying to develop a process which will establish a
wolf management policy that can be long standing, acceptable by the
public and the legislature, and useful by the board. He noted the
department is working closely with the Board of Game and the Office
of the Governor, and hopefully, with the leaders of the legislature
in putting the plan together. He added that many ideas have been
put forth and feedback is being received. The department has
talked to most of the interest groups on all sides of the issue,
getting their advice and trying to determine how to move forward so
there can be a policy which will withstand the test of time and not
be stopped as soon as it is implemented.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS made a MOTION to MOVE HCS CSSB 77(RES), out of
committee with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of
the motion were Representatives Kott, Austerman, Ogan, Williams,
and Green. Voting against the motion was Representative Davies.
The MOTION PASSED 5-1.
TAPE 95-62, SIDE B
Number 000
SB 16 - INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS made a MOTION to ADOPT HCS CSSB 16(RES),
version K.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT reviewed the changes contained in the committee
substitute. He said the first change is on page 15, line 6, which
protects the mental health lands until the mental health trust has
been reconstituted. The next change is on page 4, line 1, which
allows the university, rather than the Department of Revenue, to
manage their trust fund and report on its performance to the
legislature. He stated the next change begins on page 5, line 11,
and protects prospecting sites and claims if they have been
selected. The next change is on page 2, line 19 and is intent
language encouraging the development of in-state value-added
industries to the maximum extent feasible.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated the next change is on page 10, line 17,
and clarifies the university has in place a development program to
derive income from the land selection.
Number 120
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the point was made at the subcommittee
meeting that the university might not have income received from
their lands selected within the time frame but certainly could have
a plan in place to do that. He stated quite often it takes a
number of years to formulate an effective plan.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the next change is on page 5, line 30, and
provides a minimum selection of 640 acres. Since the subcommittee
met, there has been considerable feedback from the department and
the university indicating they would like to discuss this change.
The next change is on page 4, line 29, and reduces the amount of
acreage that can be selected by the university from one million
acres to 350,000 acres, which was the original amount of acreage
conveyed to the university at the time of statehood, even though
that amount of acreage was never conveyed.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated the next change is on page 10, line 20,
and relates to the conveyance of land. He asked Co-Chairman Green
to discuss this change.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said originally the university land was to come
from the federal government and there were many people who felt
that some of the state land conveyed should have been available to
the university. However, that was never documented. He stated the
concern was that the first step should be to go to the federal
government for state land and if that does not work, the next
concept is if there is going to be a conveyance of land that is now
granted to the university and the university subsequently wants to
divest itself of that land, it should be on an exchange basis
rather than a sale.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT told committee members the next change is on
page 2, line 17, and suggests that renewable resources should be
managed on a sustained yield basis, taking into account the total
land grant, therefore, avoiding looking at one isolated pocket.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN WITHDREW his OBJECTION to the motion.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections to adopting
the committee substitute. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 250
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said on page 5, line 30, the 640 acres might
pose a problem in selecting parcels of land of that size. He
stated both the department and the university have come forward
with that concern. He said a conceptual amendment might be in
order which would allow for the initial selection to be at a
minimum of 640 acres and thereafter, any additional selections to
be at a minimum of 40 acres.
NICO BUS, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
(DNR), said in talking with Ron Swanson, Director, Division of
Land, it was his experience in dealing with the mental health
settlement and other issues, that 640 acres was too large, and
specifically for residential and recreational sites, 40 acres is a
better number. He stated Mr. Swanson suggested changing the
language on page 5, line 30, from 640 acres to 40-60 acres in size.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if Mr. Swanson had a suggested number from
that range.
MR. BUS said the minimum is 40 acres. He stated the problem is if
there is a selection of 640 acres, there is a conflict and the
university is only interested in a 40 acre site, the department
would be willing to give them the 40 acres but would not be willing
to give them the full 640 acres because of conflicting land
interests or public interest values.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said his concern is that smaller parcels will
create an expanded duty on the conveyance because there will be
four times as many conveyances. The other concern is that it would
perhaps make for more checker boarding rather than contiguity.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated a number of these parcels can be
conveyed with a single conveyance action, so it does not
necessarily have to increase the paperwork. He felt intent
language is needed saying the legislature would like the university
to select as large as parcel as possible. However, expressing that
in the actual statute is somewhat difficult.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 16(RES) on
page 5, line 30, delete the word "whole"; replace the word
"sections" with the word "parcels"; change the number 640 to 40;
after the word acres, insert the words ", or larger wherever
practical"; and on line 31, delete the words "and may not be made
in fractional parts of sections;".
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT OBJECTED. He said that would suggest 40 acres
or larger wherever possible and there could be five acres conveyed
or one acre.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES disagreed. He said 40 acres is the minimum.
He mentioned it was important to let the bill drafter know the
importance of the comma before the words "or larger wherever
practical".
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT withdrew his objection.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections to the
amendment. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 378
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 16(RES) on
page 4, line 29, delete the number 350,000 and insert the number
1,000,000.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN OBJECTED.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS felt the figure will be debated on the floor
as it was last year. He stated getting land as close to the
private sector as possible is better for the state. He noted the
university has a track record of managing their land correctly in
an environmentally safe manner.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the subcommittee felt if the figure was 1
million acres, it would connote that the committee supported 1
million acres. Therefore, the subcommittee felt compelled to
reduce the figure down to another number. The most legitimate
number, based on the information available, was 350,000 since that
was the original number used to convey land to the university at
statehood.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated in discussions the subcommittee had, there
was concern that even 1 million acres is far below, percentage-
wise, that which other land grant schools get. On the other hand,
the state has a lot of land that could potentially make the figure
go up to 10 million acres. He noted the 1 million acres was an
arbitrary number. He said the 350,000 figure at least had a tie,
as that was the original grant.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "If in the wisdom of the legislature they
want to bring that back up to 500,000 as it was at one time,
250,000 was suggested...there were lots of numbers discussed, but
for the committee to come in with 1 million acres could send a
message saying, we do not care, we want you to have a great number
of acreage. I think your point that they have done well in
managing their land...they have...there is still land they have not
done much with...so the discussion last night got to the point that
if we were to grant 350,000 and they can come back and show they
have done a good job managing the land...look what we have done as
compared to what the same number of years under state ownership
did...they could certainly increase that with another bill. They
could go back up showing they have this great track record on an
even expanded number of acres because this acreage is not going to
be pristine, prime, wonderful acreage because it has already been
selected."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted the 350,000 acres was not a unanimous
decision in the subcommittee. He agreed there is no history behind
the 1 million acres figure but felt there is a rationale for that
number. He did not feel there is any particular stronger tie or
rationale for the original 350,000 acres. He said it is a
consideration people make who are making the decision...they look
at all the factors involved and come to an agreement on what is
ultimately an arbitrary number. He stated it is not totally
without rationale.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt the committee should discuss what the
level of the land grant should be in the context of what is
intended to be accomplished. He said the bill is trying to
accomplish two things: Provide a stable, financial underpinning
for the university; and provide an additional diversified
stimulation to the state's economy. He stated both of those goals
are furthered by having a larger endowment to the university. He
thought the discussion needs to center on that, rather than trying
to find some magic tie out there.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt the committee should not be fixating on
something that was magic from pre-statehood days as the situation
was quite different then. Perhaps there was a rationale for that
number at that time. He noted much has happened since then and
that figure should be revisited in light of what is known today and
what the intent of the bill is.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "My tie concept has to do with the fact
that this did happen some time ago and that if we are going to go
back because someone thinks there was some indication that this
land should come out of the land granted to the state as part of
that which normally land grant schools get from the federal
government but since we got ours from the federal government then
we should give part of that to the school if we are tying to that
then that is why I say we should tie with that understanding at
that time was 350,000 which to me makes a stronger case than to say
well because back there we need to get it from the state but we are
not going to take what was the suggested amount back there--we are
going to take some other number. To me that begins to mix apples
and oranges."
Number 491
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated with the time constraints involved in
managing lands, to manage lands correctly there is a need to get
the amount to be worked with immediately so planning for the future
can begin. He recalled it was mentioned earlier that it is going
to take at least ten years in order to get the conveyances from the
state. During that time, the university could be planning for the
one million acres and do a better job at managing the lands
correctly and perhaps even selecting lands. He noted it is not
known what the university's top priority is. He wondered if the
sponsor agreed with changing the one million acres to 350,000
acres.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he talked to the sponsor several days ago
and told him there would probably be amendments made to SB 16. The
sponsor stated he did not object to amendments as long as they made
the bill better and more easily accepted. Co-Chairman Green
thought keeping the acreage low would be more acceptable. He noted
he can do a good job managing his back yard. If he has to manage
all the yards in the neighborhood, his ability is going to go down.
He pointed out 350,000 acres is twice the amount of land the
university currently has and is a significant increase. He
stressed if the university can still manage that land and wants
more land, they should come back and get more but to give them five
times the amount they have now may not be helpful.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote on the amendment.
Voting in favor of the motion were Representatives Austerman,
Davies, and Williams. Voting against the motion were
Representatives Kott, Ogan, and Green. The MOTION FAILED 3-3.
Number 547
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 16 on page 4,
line 29, delete 350,000 and insert 500,000.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT OBJECTED.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of
the motion were Representatives Davies, Austerman, and Williams.
Voting against the motion were Representatives Kott, Ogan, and
Green. The MOTION FAILED 3-3.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES discussed page 10, line 20. He said the
committee heard convincing testimony on the rationale as to why
this kind of restriction is not wanted. There are exceptional
circumstances where a very small conveyance is clearly in the
fiduciary interest of the university. An example is where a small
amount of acreage is sold enabling the federal government to build
a park headquarters and as a result of building that headquarters,
all the surrounding land the university has then becomes far more
valuable...campsites could be installed and revenue could be
derived from the land as a result of that federal investment. He
stated the federal laws prevent the federal government from
building a building like that on anything but federal land.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated there are rare exceptions where it is
clearly in the university's interest to do that. He noted the
Board of Regents already have a policy which says the university is
not in the business of getting rid of their land but rather, their
land is to be managed for the very long term. The Regents do not
contemplate giving the land to anyone, including the federal
government, as a matter of policy. He felt any concerns are
already protected. He stressed it is not in the university's
financial interest to dispose of lands when they are trying to
establish an endowment for the long term.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said there are exceptional circumstances and
to try to force the university to achieve an acre for acre exchange
is complicated. He felt the language unnecessarily hamstrings the
university.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 16(RES) by
undoing the amendment offered in the subcommittee in regard to page
10, lines 19 through 25.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated the subcommittee discussed that this would
be a rare case and if it is that rare, the language should not
unduly restrict the university on the rare occasion such as the
park situation. He suggested on those rare occasions, a land swap
could be worked out because there would be a lot of lead time. He
said the reason the language is contained in the bill is to
preclude future chancellory from going in the other direction,
especially in times where revenues might be even tighter than they
are now.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT OBJECTED to the motion.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of
the amendment was Representative Davies. Voting against the motion
were Representatives Austerman, Kott, Ogan, Williams, and Green.
The MOTION FAILED 5-1.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS questioned page 2, line 17. He thought
somewhere else in the bill it mentioned the requirement to manage
land under the Department of Natural Resources regulations. He
wondered if this language was redundant.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted the language was in the findings section.
Number 653
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT told committee members the subcommittee agreed
to forward a letter to the Board of Regents urging them to approach
Congress again to try and urge them to transfer federal lands to
the university.
TAPE 95-63, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said if SB 16 passes, there would be a
recognition that there is an honest effort on the legislature's
part to provide the university some additional acreage and perhaps
the federal government could do the same.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated he looked into having an amendment
drafted but it was determined the amendment would be
unconstitutional (a dedicated fund) to have the funds derived from
any proceeds from developing this land put into deferred
maintenance. He wondered if it would be acceptable to address that
issue in the legislative intent section.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt the Board of Regents has been grappling
with that issue over the last few years. The Regents now have put
into place a policy that requires on the first draw of the budget
to take care of maintenance. He said there is a process each
campus has to go through to identify what the ongoing, absolutely
essential maintenance needs are and those things get funded. He
thought the issue was being taken care of.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the money derived from the land grant
is used directly by the university or does it go into the general
fund.
Number 068
WENDY REDMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF
ALASKA, stated approximately ten years ago, the legislature set up
in statute a natural resource endowment which follows the intent of
the federal land grant statutes and defines what the money is used
for, which is essentially natural resource issues. The money goes
into the endowment trust fund and all of the earnings, minus
inflation proofing, are available to the university as program
receipts which are appropriated by the legislature, as program
receipts, to the university each year.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated if legislative intent language was
included, he would be more willing to consider larger acreage for
the university.
MS. REDMAN responded use of any receipts from the natural resource
endowment for deferred maintenance, unless it was maintenance on
agricultural experiment station or the fisheries industrial
technology center, would not be in the scope of the statute already
on the books for the use of the fund.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted whatever amount of money coming in to
the university from the earnings of that fund offsets the need for
those funds and makes more funds available to deferred maintenance
and everything else the university does.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT thanked the members of the subcommittee and
members of the House Resources Committee who made contributions to
the committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN made a MOTION to MOVE HCS CSSB 16(RES), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would hear SB 171 and HB
334 on Thursday, May 4.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Co-Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 9:50 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|