Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/19/1996 08:12 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
February 19, 1996
8:12 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Don Long
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Irene Nicholia
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 58
Relating to reauthorization and reform of the Endangered Species
Act.
- PASSED CSHJR 58(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 58
SHORT TITLE: REFORM THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/12/96 2722 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/96 2722 (H) RESOURCES
02/19/96 (H) RESOURCES 8:00 AM, CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 24
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 58
JACK E. PHELPS, Executive Director
Alaska Forest Association, Incorporated
111 Stedman, Suite 200
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901-6559
Telephone: (907) 225-5114
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 58
PAULA EASLY, Board Member
Alaska Resources Development Council
Vice-Chair, Nationwide Public Projects Coalition
2134 Crataegus Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-6800
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 58
ED GRASSER, Lobbyist
Alaskan Outdoor Council
P.O. Box 2193
Mat-Su, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-3772
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 58
SARA HANNAN, Executive Director
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 58
RON SOMERVILLE, Technical Consultant
to House Majority
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 208
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2689
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 58
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-18, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Resources Committee meeting
to order at 8:12 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Williams, Ogan, Kott, Barnes, Davies and
Long. Members absent were Representatives Austerman and Nicholia.
This meeting was teleconferenced to Ketchikan, Mat-Su, and
Anchorage. A quorum was present.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that the agenda was HJR 58.
HJR 58 - REFORM THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Number 100
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green, was
first to testify. He said the Endangered Species Act (ESA) passed
in 1973, has been amended several times since that time through a
reauthorization process. He said the ESA has been controversial
since its inception and added that Congress has been trying to pass
legislation reauthorizing the ESA since 1972. He said in 1995
Representative Pombo from California and Representative Don Young
from Alaska introduced legislation, HR 2275, to pass ESA reform
legislation.
MR. LOGAN said, even those who are opposed to HR 2275, admit that
the ESA needs overhaul. He said the ESA has received national
attention due to its application with certain species including the
Spotted Owl and the California King Salmon. He said only a small
number of species have recovered or benefited as a direct result of
being listed as endangered or threatened. He said, in recent
years, major public opposition to the implementation of the ESA has
created a major groundswell of support for ESA reform.
Number 211
MR. LOGAN said private property owners have been impacted by
overzealous agency implementation of ESA. Complaints by the
public, impacted industries and local governments have prompted the
federal agencies to make major administrative and policy changes
affecting how the ESA is interpreted. Unfortunately, these changes
came too little, too late and the general public no longer trusts
the federal agencies to improve the ESA process.
Number 255
MR. LOGAN said HJR 58 is intended to support the efforts of our
Congressional delegation and other states in reforming the ESA. He
said there are sections of HR 2275 that Alaskans would like to see
altered, but that it is a good foundation from which to start the
dialogue. He said, hopefully, Congress will continue their efforts
to pass reauthorization this year or early next year. He concluded
that HJR 58 simply indicates Alaska's strong support for that
effort.
Number 299
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT asked for the definition of a biological
diversity reserve system.
MR. LOGAN deferred the question to Mr. Somerville, as he could give
a more precise definition.
Number 352
JACK E. PHELPS, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association,
Incorporated, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. He said
the Association represents the forest products industry in Alaska,
with more than 250 member companies across the state.
MR. PHELPS read from a sponsor statement, "Thank you for
introducing HJR 58 supporting the re-authorization of the ESA and
supporting Congressman Young's effort to bring some balance to this
important act. As you correctly state in your sponsor statement,
Alaska has a great deal to lose if the ESA is not administered in
a fair and balanced manner. The forest products industry, together
with the other extractive industries in Alaska, is very concerned
about the growing misapplication of the ESA, especially in the
western states.
"HJR 58 says the `the state of Alaska supports the basic concept
embodied in the act to prevent the extinction of species.' The
Alaska Forest Association echoes that position. However, we
believe it is also important to protect humans and their interests
in this world, and that when those interests conflict, some trade-
offs may have to occur. We do not, for example, believe that it is
acceptable for whole communities to be put out of work merely to
provide absolute protection to a particular species in a particular
place. In other words, the `distinct population segment' concept
should be carefully reviewed.
"The association also believes that the ESA should not be used as
a means of taking private property without just compensation; a
principle embodied in our United States Constitution. This country
and this state were founded on the principle that no person should
be deprived of life, liberty or the use of private property without
due process of law. The authors of our state constitution
considered this principle so important that they incorporated it
into Article I, Section 7 of the state constitution. It is vital
to the health of the forest products industry, not only in Alaska
but across the country, that this principle be consistently applied
in the implementation of the ESA. To that end, I urge you and
Congressman Young to continue your efforts to restore some sense of
fairness to the national effort to protect endangered animals.
"Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this important
matter. I would be happy to answer any questions you or the
committee may have."
Number 531
PAULA EASLY, Alaska Resources Development Council, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. She added that she is also the
Vice-Chair, Nationwide Public Project Coalition (NPPC), which
consists, primarily, of cities, counties and special districts
throughout the United States. She said this coalition is "pretty
frustrated because they just cannot fulfill their statutory
responsibility for building basic local, regional government
infrastructure project." She said the biggest roadblock has been
(indisc.), Clean Water Act, and the ESA. She said, (indisc.--
coughing) and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC),
we are following on those two federal laws. She added that Dr.
Frank Dunkill (ph.), head of United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and an officer of the NPPC until his recent death who felt
that (indisc.--overlapping voices) Congressman Richard Pombo. "he
saw that, firsthand, that the act simply wasn't potentially
(indisc.--coughing) that it was making a huge dent in the economy
and quality of people and city of this county.
Number 634
MS. EASLY supported the passage of HJR 58 and said it would be
useful in the effort that is occurring in Congress. She made a
recommendation that on page one, line seven, in the discussion of
cooperation among federal agencies, state fish and wildlife
agencies, and private landowners, that "local government" should be
included as it broadens the scope of those who are affected.
Number 701
MS. EASLY said on line 13, she felt it should read, "Whereas the
detrimental effects of the act on private landowners and regional
economy," to broaden the concept.
Number 724
MS. EASLY said on page two, line 14, she felt it should read, "an
effective partnership with the states and community in the
conservation of endangered species."
Number 773
MS. EASLY cited an example of a habitat conservation plan which
occurred in Riverside County. This county was supposed to set aside
45,000 acres for a kangaroo rat preserve. She said in order to
accomplish that task, everyone buying land in the county had to pay
$1,950 per acre rat fee. She said this fee went into a fund which
bought land for the preserve. She said in eight years almost $30
million has gone into this fund which bought 8,400 acres. She said
the agencies are now threatening that they will not issue an
interim take permit. She said everyone convened to rectify the
permit process, and now that the county is near the end of this
process, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has told Riverside
County that they want more land, which would cost $1.6 million. If
this land is not bought, the county will not be granted a 30 year
permit. On February 1, 1996, the Board of Directors of the
Conservation Agency unanimously adopted a resolution which states,
if the agency plans are not formed by May 7, 1996, and if the
agencies ask for any more money, Riverside County will dissolve the
whole process. She said this is an example where a local community
feels lied to, misrepresented, mistreated and mislead by federal
agencies. She said this example also represents the local
governments and counties relationship to the process and how
important it is that they have a role.
Number 999
MS. EASLY said there is an opportunity this year to address private
property protection. She mentioned another federal bill, by
Senator Dole EB 605, which is a property rights protection bill.
Number 1055
REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG asked her to repeat her suggestion for line
14, on page two.
MS. EASLY said the local communities have an important part in the
conservation plan and that they should be incorporated in equal
standing during those negotiations. She referred to a court case
in New Mexico, which determined that under the National
Environmental Policy Act, federal regulations should encourage and
allow joint planning between the federal agencies and the local
government.
Number 1191
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN expressed concern that if "and communities" were
included its definition would be confusing. He said the problem
with the ESA is that the language is open to conjecture and he
didn't want to revise HJR 58 and have language open to conjecture.
He added that the recommendation, Ms. Easly made on page one, was
good.
MS. EASLY defined communities as including "cities, boroughs,
counties, whatever." She said HR 2275 supports the inclusion of
communities.
Number 1239
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked for clarification on some points
regarding HJR 58 and was told that Mr. Somerville would answer
those questions.
Number 1268
ED GRASSER, Alaskan Outdoor Council, testified via teleconference
from Mat-Su. He said his organization supports HJR 58.
Number 1292
MR. LOGAN said the national biological reserve concept is an
embodiment of Title 6, Section 601 of HR 2275. He said HR 2275
establishes the national biological diversity reserve which is
comprised of the National Conservation System units. He said
National Conservation System is defined as federally owned lands
within the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System,
the National Wilderness Preservation System and some wild segments
of rivers within the National Wild and Scenic River System. The
secretary has, within 18 months of passage of the act, the power to
nominate, to the biological diversity system, lands which he or she
determines would contribute to the protection, maintenance and
enhancement of biological diversity in accordance with the
provisions of the act. He said, in his understanding of how it has
been explained, that those units of federally managed and
designated lands, that the Secretary of Agriculture believes would
contribute to a biological diversity under HR 2275, would be under
another classification such as scenic, or wildlife refuge, and also
would be classified biological diversified.
Number 1401
SARA HANNAN, Executive Director, Alaska Environmental Lobby, was
next to testify. She said she opposed the passage of HJR 58. She
said she wanted to draw the committee's attention to the contrast
between the whereas clauses and the conclusions. She said at the
outset we say that the state of Alaska is concerned (indisc.--paper
shuffling) and that is why her organization concluded that there is
no evidence that the ESA is a problem in Alaska. She said there
are no resource industries who are in trouble with the ESA. She
said the state of Alaska is doing many things to regulate the
harvesting of timber that resemble actions taken by the federal
government to restrict resource extraction. She said buffer zones
that are required on private land, under state law, are parallel to
things required by federal law in other states. She said this is
an example of why sometimes it is in the government's best
interest, at some times, to restrict private development. She
urged the committee to think about it in the most conservative
sense, if we don't protect anadromous streams, we don't know what
the economic impact would be to the state of Alaska. She said the
state is restricting private land owners use by placing a
restriction of harvested timber in a buffer strip zone, but the
state has collectively made a decision believing it to be good
management. She said the state places many restrictions on private
property.
Number 1491
MS. HANNAN said the ESA, a regulation deemed important by the
federal government, is important in philosophy. She made an
analogy to being given an ark which encompassed a complex web of
things in balance with each other. She said we are not sure where
the medical breakthroughs of the twenty-first century are going to
come from, but most of the twentieth-century breakthroughs were
dependent on animal research and species discovery. She said it is
short sighted to say that if those conflict with human use, we
should side with human use. She said the most conservative and
long range plan should be to make sure that we know everything
before we decide to let it go. She said the science behind many
species is not fully achieved.
Number 1535
MS. HANNAN said the ESA is a federal law with an accompanying set
of regulations that, like other federal laws, cause criticism. She
said, when one policy is implemented over a vast nation, issues
will arise where the policy comes out in ways that are not liked.
She didn't feel that the ESA was failing. She added that she
didn't feel that HR 2275 gets us to a resolution on the ESA which
makes us better prepared to face the twenty-first century with new
science.
Number 1593
CO-CHAIR BILL WILLIAMS agreed that there is no endangered species
being affected in the state of Alaska. He said HR 2275 will fix
some of the problem areas within the ESA such as habitat
conservation areas. He said, in Alaska, there are no endangered
species, but habitat conservation areas were still required because
there might-be species that are endangered. He said HR 2275 is
trying to fix the might be situations. He said a reform of the ESA
is needed.
Number 1658
CO-CHAIR GREEN referred to information available in the committee
packet which showed examples of where there have been abuses
because of the ESA. He cited an example involving private
ownership, where a eagle nest on private land required a buffer
zone of 500 acres. He said the ESA causes private land owners to
chop down a tree with an eagle's nest in it to avoid the ESA
requirements, so the ESA reduces, rather than enhances, the
benefits to endangered species.
Number 1720
MS. HANNAN said she wished the Department of Fish and Game and the
Department of Natural Resources were here to talk about how the ESA
is being carried out in Alaska, and how the implementation is
affecting our resource management.
Number 1742
RON SOMERVILLE, Technical Consultant to House Majority, said his
expertise and background involves work with the ESA. He said the
ESA is not currently working as Congress intended it to do. He
said there are some examples where it has worked and mentioned the
Aleutian Canada goose which established its previous range and the
Peregrine falcon. He said the problem with the ESA is a total
inflexibility with how it is administered by the agency. He
mentioned the policies adopted by Secretary Andrews and Secretary
Brown in "response to their responsibilities" associated with the
ESA. He questioned why policies were being formulated in an
attempt to prevent a reform of the ESA. He believed there has been
such a response because the ESA was enacted in 1972.
Number 1846
MR. SOMERVILLE cited an example of the Southeast United States
regarding woodpecker nests. He said private land owners chopped
down these nesting trees on their property before anyone found out
an endangered species was nesting in them. He said approximately
60 percent of the endangered species habitat is critically linked
with private property. He said the federal government, through
adoption of strict policies, could not save many of these species
because of the private property issue. He said Secretary Andrews
indicated that changes in dealing with private property owners,
partly because of the Sweet Home (indisc.) the Supreme Court upheld
the Secretary of the Interiors right to list critical habitat
involving private property. He said more legislation, dealing with
this issue, is being submitted by Congress. He said the western
governors developed a consensus position on the ESA which called
for major reform and incentives for private property owners.
Number 1916
MR. SOMERVILLE said in Alaska if the ESA is not restructured, there
will be problems in the future. He cited an example regarding a
ground fishery and the impact it had on the Stellar Sea Lion. The
state of Alaska intervened and it was ruled in favor of the ground
fishery, but the judge who presided over the case indicated concern
over whether or not the state was meeting the strict wording of the
ESA. He said under the ESA, agencies have unfettered rights to
declare species endangered or threatened, establish critical
habitat areas and have the ability to regulate activities which
potentially would impact those species.
Number 1976
MR. SOMERVILLE cited an example regarding salmon. He said Alaska
is being affected because of the abuses which occurred in the
Columbia River system. He referred to the Snake River Chinook
salmon and said Alaska takes a minuscule number of this salmon, but
must take an incidental take from it because of the wording of the
ESA. He said in the process of catching the healthy stocks of
Alaskan and British Columbian king salmon, a permit must be
obtained. He said the quota, under this permit, continues to go
down. He said a judge ruled last year that Alaska must severely
reduce their quota in order to halt the declining king salmon
stocks which have been reduced in the Snake River area.
Number 2004
MR. SOMERVILLE referred to the example Co-Chairman Williams cited,
where two species were targeted on a petition, the Vancouver Island
Goshawk and the Alexander Archipelago wolf as being endangered. He
said the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) agreed to
go ahead with a petition and do the review. He said the petitions
should have been rejected outright because there was no chance that
they would have prevailed in court. He said the US FWS explained
biologically why those species were not distinct. He said a clear
understanding is needed of the habitat and the correlating species
number, specifically species that, in Alaska, are in the
peripheries of their range.
Number 2094
MR. SOMERVILLE said, of the 1500 endangered species on the list,
very few have been removed from the ESA and this fact is targeted
in HR 2275. He said, most people in Alaska would agree, that the
language defining, "distinct population segments," needs to be
changed. He again referred to the fact that you must know the
habitats in order to be able to judge whether or not they should be
on the ESA. He reiterated that strict controls are implemented
once they are on this list, with little chance of the species going
off the list. He cited an example regarding Steelhead numbers. He
said this issue is stalemated in Congress.
Number 2143
MR. SOMERVILLE said that from his perspective, the government would
want to gather all information from various sources; the state,
public, local communities regarding conservation plans, habitat
plans, harvest regimes, species population assessment models to
give the best possible information for decision making. He said
this does not happen. He said the federal government dictates what
needs to happen and that ruling must be followed. He talked about
the different factors which could work in partnership with each
other and cited an example of the grizzly bear in Montana.
Number 2210
MR. SOMERVILLE said agencies need better scientific criteria,
specified in the ESA, for listing and de-listing purposes. He said
the United States supported, with societies convention, the
provision which called for qualitative criteria for internationally
listed species. He said if there was a better peer review the
Vancouver Goshawk example would never have occurred.
Number 2240
MR. SOMERVILLE mentioned the provision in the ESA requiring the
state to give 60 days notice before they legally challenge the
federal government. He said this provision means that the fishing
period is over when the time period ends. He concluded that these
points are addressed in HJR 58 and that he was available for
questions.
Number 2270
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked if certain groups were targeting
particular activities using the ESA when it hasn't been
justifiable.
Number 2297
MR. SOMERVILLE said many environmental laws are interpreted
differently by the courts than they are intended to solve. He
cited the example of the spotted owl and other cases where issues
have been tied up by unnecessary litigation.
Number 2328
CO-CHAIR GREEN asked for the definition of private property in the
ESA.
Number 2335
MR. SOMERVILLE said there is no definition of private property in
the ESA, private property would be any titled land. He said he
could not answer whether that would be any non-federally owned
land.
CO-CHAIR GREEN said the implication he received from the ESA was
that private property was any non-federally owned land.
MR. SOMERVILLE agreed with that, but added that he was hesitant to
state anything because of other legislation regarding private
property. He said, in the other legislation, the interpretation
has been titled land and said that would include state land.
Number 2379
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said for the record that Representative Davies
arrived "twenty minutes ago."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked for clarification on page two,
item eight on the list of resolves in HJR 58, and asked why it was
important to eliminate the biological diversity reserve system.
Number 2390
MR. SOMERVILLE said this issue was included by U.S. Representative
Pombo in response to the private property issue. Representative
Pombo said we have national park areas, national refuge areas,
national wilderness areas and that the federal government should
impose its standards on its own land first. He said the federal
government put in a provision of the ESA which excluded these
federal lands, labeled biodiversity of other lands as one of
primary features and to manage it accordingly. He said the ESA
should not be a biodiversity act. He said Alaska has 140 million
acres of withdrawal, of which 90 million acres is refuges and
parks. He said Alaska, when the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA) passed, chose not to put in
transportation and utility corridors, instead Senator Stevens
included Title XI. He said a biodiversity inclusion would never
allow the state of Alaska to receive a Title XI permit for a
transportation system. He said Alaska received a lot of special
considerations regarding its circumstances under ANILCA and if the
biodiversity classification were implemented you would see a lot of
changes being made by the Secretary of the Interior. He felt that
Alaska would probably be targeted first to enact a biodiversity
system.
TAPE 96-18, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked about page 2, segment nine.
Number 013
MR. SOMERVILLE said, in HR 2275, the basic principle is a demand
for a prioritization process to target the species most endangered.
He said HR 2275 requests better economic assessments, better
scientific principles, and consideration of the long term interests
of the public.
Number 055
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES mentioned biodiversity, but then later
clarified that he was asking about consideration of the public
interest and how that could be implemented.
Number 080
MR. SOMERVILLE said, under the HR 2275, the agencies would consider
economic impact and this is a public interest issue. He said if
the costs of aiding a particular species are so high, and the
chances of recovery are so small, it might be better to appoint
that same amount of money, $600 million to $700 million per year in
regards to the Snake River Chinook salmon, to another endangered
species.
Number 137
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said the economic aspect appears to be
incorporated into the previous phrase, "costs of implementation,"
in segment nine. He expressed concern over the vagueness of the
language regarding the definition of the public interest.
Number 155
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT referred to page three, segment ten,
"requirement that recovery plans impose equitable burdens on
affected entities," and asked for a definition of affected
entities, who they would be and how it would be applied.
Number 171
MR. SOMERVILLE said Alaska has been forced to limit their stocks of
the Columbia River salmon which the fishermen feel that this has
been an unequitable burden and affected entities "is just that."
He said the area, which affects the change in the species, should
pay the heavier burden through something like the incidental take
quota.
Number 226
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked, if the Canadians were an affected
entity, how HJR 58 would apply.
Number 248
MR. SOMERVILLE said HJR 58 would not apply to a foreign country,
except in the methods the United States government can utilize such
as negotiations or targeting trade.
Number 279
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether the species itself would be
considered in the definition of affected entity.
MR. SOMERVILLE believed that the definition would only include
human entities.
Number 313
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt amendments on page one,
add "local governments" on lines 8, 11, and "regional economies" on
line 13 in HJR 58. Hearing no objection HJR 58 was so amended.
Number 340
CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS made a motion to move HJR 58 as amended.
Number 352
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected to the motion and proposed an
amendment, on page two, lines 7,8, and 9, deleting the first,
"resolve". He mentioned the fact that not all the committee
members have read HR 2275 and added the difficulty of supporting
legislation of another legislative body which can be altered in
revisions. He said HJR 58 specifically addresses the issues of
concern to Alaska.
Number 404
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected to the proposed amendment.
CO-CHAIR GREEN said HJR 58 states that HR 2275 needs to be enacted
as a guide for ESA reform because it addresses issues of concern
for Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES modified his amendment on page two, delete
the "parenthetical using HR 2275 as the basis for the
reauthorization legislation".
Number 479
CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS said the HJR 58 asks Congress to proceed with
reauthorization of ESA using HR 2275 as a basis for this
reauthorization of legislation. He asked how the proposed
amendment would affect HJR 58.
Number 511
CO-CHAIR GREEN said he felt this proposed amendment would take away
from HJR 58. He said he would encourage an objection to the
proposed amendment and added that he planned to vote against it.
Number 673
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he objected to the modified amendment.
CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS discussed the legislative process and said at
this time HJR 58 supports HR 2275 in its current form.
Number 583
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he could not support all of HR 2275, but
he could vote for a HJR 58 which regarded a specific
reauthorization of the ESA. He said Congressman Young would most
likely use HJR 58 to pass HR 2275. He said once HJR 58 was passed
there was no way that it could be modified if HR 2275 was modified
in a way that the legislature would no longer support.
Number 664
A vote was taken on Representative Davies' amendment.
Representative Davies voted yes. Representatives Long, Ogan,
Williams and Green voted no. Representative Kott was absent for
the vote. The amendment failed to be adopted by the House Standing
Resources Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES proposed an amendment on page two, delete
lines 27 and 28.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS objected to the proposed amendment.
Number 675
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said exempting Alaska from the biological
diversity reserve system is too extreme a position to take. He
said most biologists would testify to the importance of
biodiversity and the importance of maintaining and enhancing it.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that Representative Barnes joined the
committee meeting. A roll call vote was taken on the proposed
amendment. Representative Davies voted yes. Representatives Kott,
Long, Ogan, Williams, Green, and Barnes voted nay. The proposed
amendment failed to be adopted by the House Standing Committee on
Resources.
Number 783
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES proposed an amendment on lines 30 to 31, page
two, delete, "and the public interest".
CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS objected to this proposed amendment.
A roll call vote was taken on the proposed amendment.
Representative Davies voted yes. Representatives Kott, Long, Ogan,
Williams, Green, Barnes voted nay. The proposed amendment failed
to be adopted by the House Standing Committee on Resources.
Number 780
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT proposed an amendment, based on testimony by
Mr. Somerville, on page three, line two, deleting the word,
"entities" and inserting, "user groups". He said this clarifies
the language. Hearing no objections Representative Kott's
amendment was adopted to HJR 58 by the House Standing Committee on
Resources.
Number 818
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS made a motion to move CSHJR 58(RES) with
individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected to this motion. A roll call vote
was taken. Representatives Barnes, Kott, Long, Ogan, Williams and
Green voted yes. Representative Davies voted nay. The House
Standing Committee on Resources moved CSHJR 58(RES) out of
committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Standing
Committee on Resources, Co-Chair Green adjourned the meeting at
9:20 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|