Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/14/1999 01:09 PM 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
April 14, 1999
1:09 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chair
Representative Jerry Sanders, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 104
"An Act revising the procedures and authority of the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the Board of Fisheries, and
the Department of Fish and Game to establish a moratorium on
participants or vessels, or both, participating in certain
fisheries; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 116
"An Act relating to the Board of Agriculture and Conservation, to
the agricultural revolving loan fund, to the disposal of state
agricultural land, and to the Alaska Natural Resource Conservation
and Development Board; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20
Relating to the removal of beaver from Washington, D.C.
- [PENDING REFERRAL] SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 104
SHORT TITLE: ENTRY MORATORIA ON PARTICIPANTS/VESSELS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HUDSON, Austerman
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/19/99 260 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/19/99 260 (H) FSH, RES
3/08/99 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
3/08/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 104(FSH)
3/08/99 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
3/10/99 408 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NT 4DP
3/10/99 408 (H) DP: KAPSNER, MORGAN, WHITAKER, HUDSON
3/10/99 408 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)
3/10/99 408 (H) REFERRED TO RES
4/14/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 116
SHORT TITLE: BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSERVATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) JAMES, Harris
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/26/99 324 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/26/99 324 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
3/10/99 418 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HARRIS
4/14/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3744
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 104.
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801-8079
Telephone: (907) 789-6160
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 104.
AMY DAUGHERTY, Lobbyist
for Pacific Associates and Alliance Fisheries
327 West 11th Street, Number 2
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-2568
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 104.
RAYMOND CAMPBELL
P.O. Box 23216
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901-8216
Telephone: (907) 247-3626
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 104.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 104.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 11.
DAVID ROGERS, Chair
Alaska Natural Resource Conservation and Development Board
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 116 as currently drafted.
MARCIA WARD
Ward Farms
PO Box 1087
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-5415
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 116.
ROBERT FRANKLIN, State President
Alaska Farm Bureau
PO Box 75184
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 488-7738
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 116.
STEVE GIBSON, Director
Homer Soil and Water Conservation District
1622 Highland Drive
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-6487
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 116.
JACKIE BECKER, Active Member and Officer
Kenai Farm Bureau
PO Box 2832
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-7013
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 116.
SIG RESTAD
Northland Pioneer Grange
H03 Box 9571
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-3165
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 116 as currently written.
JIM ELLISON, Publisher
Alaska Farmer Magazine
PO Box 55590
North Pole, Alaska 9705
Telephone: (907) 488-1970
POSITION STATEMENT: "The Alaska Farmer Magazine supports it, maybe
not quite just like it's written, but as what
we see is going to be the finished product."
BRUCE WILLARD, Rancher
40520 Waterman Road
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-8830
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed the need for continued work on
HB 116.
DOUG WITTE, Program Coordinator
Alaska Association of Conservation Districts
351 West Parks Highway, Suite 101
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Telephone: (907) 373-7923
POSITION STATEMENT: Pledged full support of future legislative
efforts to encourage agricultural development.
K. KIRK
Plweger Farms
PO Box 261
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-6248
POSITION STATEMENT: Fully supported this program.
ROB WELLS, Director
Division of Agriculture
1800 Glenn Highway, Suite 12
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-7200
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 116.
SCOTT MILLER
Misty Mountain Farms
HC 60 Box 4140
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-6208
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 116.
WAYNE BOUWENS, 65 year Alaskan resident
Chairman, Palmer Soil and Water Conservation District
Box 1274
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-3687
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed the need to do more work on HB 116.
DICK ZOBEL, Member
AKNRCDB and the Wasilla Soil and Water Conservation District
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-5640
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the bill that would include two
people would not do the job.
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Assistant
to Representative James
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions.
PETE FELLMAN, Delta Dairy Farmer
No address provided.
Telephone: (907) 465-4359
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 116.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-25, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:09 p.m. [date stated on record as April 13].
Members present at the call to order were Representatives Ogan,
Sanders, Masek, Harris, Morgan, Barnes and Whitaker.
Representative Joule arrived just after the call to order, and
Representative Kapsner arrived at 1:20 p.m.
HB 104 - ENTRY MORATORIA ON PARTICIPANTS/VESSELS
Number 0101
CO-CHAIR OGAN announced that the first item of business would be
House Bill No. 104, "An Act revising the procedures and authority
of the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the Board of
Fisheries, and the Department of Fish and Game to establish a
moratorium on participants or vessels, or both, participating in
certain fisheries; and providing for an effective date." Before
the committee was CSHB 104(FSH).
Number 0154
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
noted that Mary McDowell of the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC) could answer technical questions. He explained
that HB 104 amends existing moratorium law to provide for a
streamlined and more effective process, in order to better manage
Alaska's fisheries resources. The current moratorium statute,
which Ms. McDowell could address, has proven cumbersome and
unworkable. That, in turn, prevents quick response - not only by
the CFEC, but also by other agencies - to fisheries that are
growing too rapidly to ensure effective management. As a result,
both the resource and the economic livelihoods of the participants
could be jeopardized.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out that a new element is allowing
petitioners to request a moratorium directly from the CFEC. The
moratorium would be established if the CFEC found that it was
necessary to promote the conservation and sustained yield
management of the resource, and the economic health and stability
of commercial fishing in the state. The bill also authorizes the
CFEC to implement a moratorium on entry of new vessels, as well as
participants, providing an additional management tool when a number
of different skippers are used on one vessel, as occurs in some
offshore fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON informed members that HB 104 allows the state
to extend its moratorium authority to offshore fisheries adjacent
to state waters, when it is consistent with federal law. The
state's fisheries go out three miles, and the territorial sea goes
out twelve miles. However, there are fisheries that move in and
out of both state and federal waters. Wherever there is a
consistency, the CFEC would be able to apply this moratorium, to
take care of the health of the fisheries there.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON advised the committee that the bill also
authorizes the CFEC to extend the current moratorium on the Bering
Sea Korean hair crab and the weathervane scallop fisheries for an
additional two years. "We gave, by law, a few years back, the
authority or the ability for them to create a four-year
moratorium," he noted, "and this would give them an additional two
years." He indicated that Ms. McDowell could explain why that is
needed, then reminded members that a similar bill had passed the
House during the Twentieth Alaska State Legislature, with
overwhelming support.
Number 0490
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES brought attention to two letters from Ray
Campbell, which discussed the belief that amendments made to HB 204
the previous year had greatly improved the bill, but were not
included in the present legislation. She asked why Representative
Hudson had chosen not to introduce the final version from the
previous legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON answered that it was primarily at the
recommendation of the CFEC. He deferred to Ms. McDowell.
Number 0632
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC), Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), explained that
this bill incorporates everything adopted by the House last year,
but is missing one amendment made in the Senate Resources
Committee; that amendment had jumped into the next phase, saying
that any fishery that came under a moratorium under these
provisions could not later go under a limited entry program with a
transferable permit. Other changes have been made to address
concerns expressed as the previous bill went through. In
particular, Co-Chairman Ogan had expressed concern about making
sure that the Board of Fisheries continued to have involvement in
the process; that has been incorporated in several places in the
bill.
Number 0734
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked why the Senate Resources Committee
amendment was not incorporated. She also requested that Ms.
McDowell address the fact that once a limited entry permit exists,
it becomes a thing of value that can be sold or transferred.
MS. McDOWELL noted that transferability is controversial, in that
it creates value for permits when they are transferred for money.
However, that feature has kept the limited entry program as Alaskan
as it is today. It is a constitutional way for permits to change
hands, from a parent to a child, for example, and still not be
considered a closed class under the federal constitution and
interstate commerce. Without transferability, if the permits came
back to the state, to be handed back out, the list of those who
would receive them would have to include nonresidents and everyone
else. A parent could no longer transfer a permit to his or her
child, to keep it in the family.
Number 0836
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she doesn't believe that is a good
argument. She asked whether it is not a fact that permit owners
sell their permits outside of their families, "for big bucks."
MS. McDOWELL agreed they can be sold, although many permits change
hands as a gift, inheritance or survivorship to the spouse at the
death of the permit holder. Restating that transferability has
always been controversial, she reported that 77 percent of all
permits are in the hands of Alaskans, and the system has been
upheld as constitutional. The legislature, in adopting limited
entry, had felt that transferability was a feature of the program
that would help make that happen, she added, which seems to have
proven true over the years.
Number 0943
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that although limited entry was
approved by a constitutional amendment, that doesn't make it right.
She said the resources belong to all the people of this state,
adding, "I don't believe that 77 percent of the permits are still
held by Alaskan residents, because people from Washington, Oregon,
North Carolina and all over own those permits and come up here and
fish every year, when Alaskan people can't fish."
Number 1021
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Ms. McDowell to specifically address Section 1,
as well as the remainder of the bill.
MS. McDOWELL explained that the bill essentially fine-tunes and
updates this one aspect of the limited entry law. The intent is to
meet the needs of the evolving Alaska fisheries. Although current
law has a moratorium provision for the CFEC, it is not a useful
tool because it requires a long, cumbersome process. Fishermen who
recognize the need for some kind of cap on their fishery would have
to petition the commissioner of the ADF&G, who would then go to the
Board of Fisheries; the board would schedule it on their agenda,
then decide whether to give the commissioner of the ADF&G
permission to then petition the CFEC. This process could take
months or years.
MS. McDOWELL pointed out that the lengthy process could actually
worsen the situation by causing a rush into that fishery by
speculators. "As soon as you notify people that we're considering
having a lid put on this fishery, and then give them a year or two
to rush in, participate and get grandfathered in, you actually
aggravate the problem," she explained, adding that no one has ever
petitioned for a moratorium under the current statute, because it
is so cumbersome and counterproductive.
MS. McDOWELL noted that the situation that gives rise to the need
for a more effective moratorium process didn't exist when the
Limited Entry Act was passed in 1973, when people could primarily
make a living in one fishery. Now fisheries are diversifying, she
said. New fisheries are springing up, for under-utilized species
and gear types, for example. This is good economic development and
diversification for the state, and it creates job opportunities.
However, these new fisheries tend to come into existence and expand
very rapidly, and they can quickly create a resource conservation
or overcapitalization problem. That is why a more efficient
moratorium process is more important than ever now. Ms. McDowell
advised members:
Currently, ... the only tool we have for getting a quick
handle on an expanding fishery is limited entry. So,
this bill could actually avoid the need to go straight to
a limited entry permit program in a fishery. If a
fishery is mushrooming, a moratorium would give us a tool
for putting a temporary lid on that fishery, and give us
four years to assess the resource, look over the fishery,
go the Board of [Fisheries] and see if they have an
alternative way of getting a handle on that fishery -
gear restrictions or whatever.
So, it's possible that this moratorium tool would
actually prevent the need to go into limited entry in
some of these fisheries, because it buys you some time to
get a lid on something that's getting out of control and
figure out what the next step should be. During that
four years, we could assess the situation, determine
whether we need to propose limited entry and, if so, how
to best structure it to conserve the resource and take
care of the orderly development of that fishery, and to
look for alternatives to limited entry for that fishery.
So, we believe that the ability to administratively enact
a moratorium like this is a very important management
tool, ... and helps keep our options open for the future.
And the whole bill is structured to make this process so
that the fishermen could petition the entry commission.
There'd be an open public process, then, for public
comment and so on, ... while that moratorium is in place,
and just avoids this need to go through this convoluted
process of going to the commissioner, who goes to the
board, who goes back to the commissioner, who comes to
the commission. And we believe this process is a sound
one.
Number 1304
MS. McDOWELL advised members that Representative Hudson had asked
her to address the issue of extending moratoriums. She reported
that the moratoriums enacted by the legislature in the last two
years - on dive fisheries, scallops and hair crab - have all been
for four years. This bill allows for those moratoriums, or any
enacted in the future under this statute, if necessary, to be
extended for up to two more years. She stated:
We would hope to not have to use that tool in any
fishery, because people need some certainty, and there
should, ... in most cases, be time to resolve the
question in four years. If there is an instance where
you can't resolve it in four years, we believe the
ability to extend is an important thing to have. For
example, if the Board of [Fisheries] is planning to take
action and get a lid on things some other way, this would
buy time for doing that.
In the case of the scallop fishery and the Korean hair
crab fishery, the legislature put those under a
moratorium based on the vessels, not on the individuals.
We don't have a vessel limited entry program. Right now,
we don't really have a tool in place to limit those
fisheries before those moratoriums expire. We've drafted
legislation to do that, but until that's passed, we don't
really have a tool for limiting those fisheries. If we
didn't have the ability to extend this, and the
moratorium would expire on those fisheries, it gets
thrown wide-open to open access again, and probably would
create a rush of nonresidents into the fisheries. So,
that provision for extending the moratorium is one we
would hope to not have to use, but believe is an
important tool to have in place, in case it ever is
needed.
Number 1409
CO-CHAIR OGAN referred to Ms. McDowell's comments about creating a
rush into a fishery. He noted that interstate commerce laws
prohibit discrimination against nonresidents.
MS. McDOWELL explained that in the case of the fisheries under
moratorium now, if the moratorium expired and there were no
limitation in place, it would go back to open access and anyone
could get back in. In the case of a couple of the fisheries in the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the concern is that several other
fisheries have been closed; license limitation has been put in
place in federal waters, and "there are boats looking for things to
do, many of those nonresident vessels that could move into the
fisheries." If there were a lag time between when a moratorium was
proposed and its implementation, there potentially would be a rush
of speculators who weren't already active participants, who may
jump in to see whether they can be grandfathered in.
Number 1499
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether, if this moratorium legislation isn't
passed, the ADF&G, through the board, could limit seasons or take
a total poundage limit, for example.
MS. McDOWELL affirmed that, noting that those are tools the board
has all of the time. The moratorium wouldn't even be proposed in
a fishery if tools were already in place to keep a lid on that
fishery, she explained. A moratorium could get a handle on a
fishery that is mushrooming and hold it at its present level while
the Board of Fisheries has time to act. If the board had tools and
met in the meantime, and if it found a way to get a handle on that
fishery, then the need to limit it, at the end of the moratorium,
would go away.
Number 1544
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recalled that the last moratorium, for the
dive fishery, was for four years. Noting the request to provide
authorization to extend that two years, she asked, "In four years,
you mean to tell me, the board of fish and game has not addressed
the problem in that dive fishery?"
MS. McDOWELL answered that the moratorium is in place now, in the
dive fishery, and they hope it will be resolved by the end of the
four years; a number of species are under that one moratorium.
This bill would not extend that moratorium, but it would provide
the ability to do that. Ms. McDowell pointed out that there are
several proposals floating around, about combined fisheries or
endorsements, for example, where one permit would be handed out for
all the dive fisheries, but there would be endorsements for
individual species. She stated:
We don't have the ability to do that now. But if the
legislature decided that you were interested in providing
that tool, there might be a reason to hold off on
finalizing the action on limitation until we knew whether
that tool was going to be provided. ... We would always
try to finish making a decision in four years, because
people need certainty, they need to get on their lives.
And if it's going to be opened up, it needs to be opened
up; if it's going to be limited, it needs to be limited.
So, our goal would always be [to] resolve it in four
years. We're primarily concerned about hair crab and
scallops right now, where it's a vessel moratorium. We
don't have a vessel limitation program. We don't have a
way to limit those right now, ... unless given the tools
to do a vessel limitation.
Number 1675
CO-CHAIR OGAN noted that he had provided members with copies of the
section of Title 16 that is repealed by Section 1 of the bill.
Number 1705
AMY DAUGHERTY, Lobbyist for Pacific Associates and Alliance
Fisheries, came forward, clarifying that she was speaking on behalf
of hair crabbers and scallop vessel owners. She read her written
testimony into the record, with comments, as follows:
I'm here to speak in support of this legislation. In my
four-year tenure with the Fisheries Committee, I assisted
in putting through two statutory moratoriums, for the
hair crab and scallop fisheries. In both cases, the
harvesting effort was beginning to exceed what those
small fisheries could endure, so we contained them
legislatively. We were fortunate that these situations
were dealt with so expediently in a political setting,
but that was before most of the legislature's attention
was on budget concerns and subsistence.
Of particular importance in this bill are Sections 2 and
8, which would allow CFEC to extend the current
moratoriums up to two years. The hair crabbers and
scallopers, who I now represent, are in support of
extending their current moratoriums, especially if a more
long-term solution cannot be attained. It is critical
that we not let these fisheries open up again. In both
cases, open access would open a floodgate of effort, to
the extent where these small fisheries ... would be
difficult or impossible to manage ....
Particularly in the hair crab fisheries, now that AFA
[American Fisheries Act] has passed and pollock is
essentially co-oped, there's a lot of flexibility, so
that they can assign their pollock quota. And this, I
believe, is the only fishery that's open in the EEZ,
which is just a red flag for people to rush into. ...
I hope the legislature will enable the state with this
management tool. Both of these fisheries reside
primarily offshore in federal waters yet have been
delegated to the state for management. Both have a
higher percentage of Alaskan involvement than most
offshore fisheries. If the state effectively "drops the
ball" or neglects to show interest, it increases the
likelihood that these fisheries will return to federal
management. It's in Alaska's best interest to have its
fishery management tools in place.
My partner, Joe Kyle, is an Alaskan designate on the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and he couldn't
be with us today. But he stated on numerous occasions
that Alaska needs to show its capability in fisheries
management, in order to retain control of these
fisheries, and also to keep our state's best interest
prevailing in the offshore fisheries. He has indicated
that restoring a license limitation program under a
federal regime would most probably decrease Alaska's
involvement in these fisheries. It's just a matter of
numbers out there.
Why should you care? These fisheries add to Alaska's
economy. They pay landing tax or business tax and fuel,
and, I believe, $1,000 annual license fees. Some
Alaskans participate in these fisheries. Some have
direct employment, and some have indirect. They can't
help but add to the Alaskan economy when they sell to
processors onshore or the product is shipped through
Anchorage after charter planes pick up the produce from
the grounds. They buy fuel and groceries from Alaskans.
They strengthen our state's infrastructure.
This legislation will enable CFEC to more effectively do
their job, limiting participation when fishing effort
exceeds a level of sustainability - resource and economic
sustainability. I urge your support for HB 104.
Number 1989
RAYMOND CAMPBELL testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. A
former commercial fisherman, he told members he was put out of
business on a moratorium. It seems that public access is being
described as a convoluted procedure, he said. "We're talking about
very valuable resources here, and to have a small group of people
go in and petition the CFEC, to put a moratorium on a fishery, and
then have the CFEC just do it, it seems to be taking a lot of the
public process out of it," he stated.
MR. CAMPBELL said he understands that there have been more than ten
requests to place other fisheries under a moratorium. If this bill
goes through, the CFEC could shut down those fisheries through a
moratorium, putting people out of work. Furthermore, he suggested,
removal of transferability and getting rid of the money incentive
may keep speculators from getting into the fisheries. If this bill
goes through, he wants to see it amended as HB 204 was amended in
the last session. "And I think the whole issue of limited entry
won't be an issue anymore, if we take the transferability and the
money incentive out of it," he concluded.
Number 2115
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Campbell about his letter dated March 11,
1999, which says in the fourth paragraph that there have been
transfers of moratorium permits, which puts a value on them. He
asked Mr. Campbell if he could cite specific examples of what the
transfers have been.
MR. CAMPBELL answered, "There have been transfers of the moratorium
permits in the dive fisheries; there have been medical transfers.
... One of the things that the dive moratorium did was it gave
permits to people who never participated in the urchin fishery, and
maybe Miss [McDowell] can give us numbers on how many medical
transfers there's been on moratorium permits in the dive fishery.
And that is driven by money, too. ... On a medical transfer,
there's money traded."
Number 2261
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), came forward,
specifying that the ADF&G supports this legislation. He said he
would focus on biological issues relating to why a moratorium is
helpful in maintaining the health of the resources. He told
members:
As both the sponsor and Ms. McDowell indicated, there's
increased interest in Alaska in developing the new
fisheries on species that are currently under-utilized or
not utilized at all. ... In nearly all cases involving
these species, the department knows very little about
their life history, the distribution, how productive they
are, how they will respond to commercial harvest. ... And
so, we are very cautious in approaching new fisheries,
and there have been cases where new fisheries have been
started - abalone is probably the instance I'd like to
use the best in Southeast Alaska, where an abalone
fishery started off at a very low level at first,
interest in it expanded, harvest rapidly expanded, beyond
what the resource could support, the fishery collapsed,
and we no longer have an abalone fishery.
And while there are mechanisms that we can put on - using
seasons, quotas or trip limits, other kinds of things -
you don't always know which of those tools are
appropriate. And you have to remember, always, that
we're starting, with these new fisheries, with very, very
limited information about the size of the resource, its
productivity, and its ability to respond to intensive
harvest. So, ... we often need some time to begin to
develop some information, because in some cases, the
fishery may actually be the only way we have of
collecting information. We're not getting increased
funding for supporting new fisheries, so there's very
limited funds. We basically have to borrow from the
staff that's dedicated to existing fisheries to try to
begin to collect this information. And so, sometimes the
fishery itself is a very important data collection tool.
However, being a fishery, it ... doesn't operate the same
way that a scientific survey would. And that's part of
the reason why you need to be cautious, and why a
moratorium like this would be very helpful. It helps the
department be able to ensure that while we may not have
exact data about the size of the resource and its
productivity, we can do our best to hold the harvest at
a conservative level, until we get enough information
that we can then increase the harvest or allow the
harvest to conform to what the resource ... can sustain.
So, for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, we are in support of
this legislation and urge you to pass it.
Number 2437
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked whether the number of permits is a
factor in establishing a quota.
MR. BRUCE replied that it wouldn't be a factor in establishing the
quota, which would be based on the size of the resource, its
productivity, its distribution, and the harvest that it could
maintain on a sustained basis.
Number 2494
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether anyone else wished to testify, then
announced that he wouldn't close public testimony at this time.
[HB 104 was held over.]
HB 116 - BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSERVATION
Number 2520
CO-CHAIR OGAN announced that the next item of business would be
House Bill No. 116, "An Act relating to the Board of Agriculture
and Conservation, to the agricultural revolving loan fund, to the
disposal of state agricultural land, and to the Alaska Natural
Resource Conservation and Development Board; and providing for an
effective date." Co-Chair Ogan informed listeners that he didn't
intend to move the bill today, but was trying to arrange an
informal hearing in his own district on Saturday, April 17, 1999,
as this affects his own district greatly.
Number 2546
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that HB 116 would establish some continuity in the
agricultural activities of the state as well as consolidate some
activities by making three boards into one. The Board of
Agriculture is set up to be the operative of the Division of
Agriculture and the current director would be hired as the
Executive Director by the board. Personally, Representative James
believed that agriculture is best directed by those involved in
agriculture. She pointed out that the board would be the Board of
Agriculture and Conservation and would consist of nine members. As
mentioned the current director of the Division of Agriculture would
be the Executive Director, one member would be the commissioner of
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), two members would be
from Alaska Soil & Water Conservation, and four from different
enterprises involved in the commercial production of agriculture.
Of those four, one would be from a statewide agricultural promotion
organization and one with business or financial expertise. This
would be a three year, rotating board. Representative James
commented that this is a work in progress and there is no intent to
make a decision on this legislation this year.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), version LS0407\N, Cook, 4/8/99, as the working
document before the committee. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that the legislation does not
currently have a fiscal note because a fiscal note cannot be
prepared until the process with the legislation is completed.
CO-CHAIR OGAN commented that at first glance, HB 116 looks as if it
would save money.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that is the goal.
CO-CHAIR OGAN turned to the public testimony.
Number 2788
DAVID ROGERS, Chair, Alaska Natural Resource Conservation and
Development Board (AKNRCDB), pointed out that AKNRCDB is one of the
boards that is proposed to be merged with the new Agriculture and
Conservation Board. He noted that most folks have never heard of
AKNRCDB or understand soil and water conservation districts, but
due to time constraints he said he would not go into the detail on
that. Mr. Rogers informed the committee that AKNRCDB is a governor
appointed, five member board which represents all of the regions of
the state. The board works closely with the 11 soil and water
conservation districts. The board is a link between the districts
and the government, in particular the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
The board provides administrative support and money pass through
and can also advise the commissioner with regard to agricultural
grazing and timber issues. Furthermore, the AKNRCDB is the board
of supervisors for the Alaska District which is the twelfth
conservation district, all the area outside of the 11 organized
soil and water conservation districts. Mr. Rogers reviewed the
location of the districts which may be the first public-private
partnership.
MR. ROGERS announced that he supported the concept of an
agriculture policy board, but he was concerned with giving the
board land management authority. With regard to merging the
Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund (ARLf) and the Dairy Board, he was
neutral. Mr. Rogers strongly opposed merger of AKNRCDB with the
new board. The AKNRCDB is not just an agricultural board, but a
board that also concerns itself with conservation issues in
general. The fear is that absorption into a new board with many
duties...
TAPE 99-25, SIDE B
MR. ROGERS appreciated the efforts to bring the commissioner and
two members into the mix, but concern remains. Therefore, he
opposed HB 116 as currently drafted.
CO-CHAIR OGAN inquired as to why the chairman of the AKNRCDB
resides in Juneau.
MR. ROGERS informed the committee that he is a representative of
Southeast Alaska as well as an oyster farmer. Therefore, he
qualified as an cooperator. He offered his help to the committee.
Number 2878
MARCIA WARD, Ward Farms, testified via teleconference from Delta
Junction. Ms. Ward supported HB 116 as it is currently drafted.
She did not understand the opposition of Mr. Rogers and others in
conservation. Ms. Ward believed that AKNRCDB would become a
stronger board with seven conservation members. She guessed that
the four farmer representatives on the new board would be
cooperators and members of the local and state soil and water
conservation districts. She also suspected that one statewide
agricultural promotion organization would have a cooperator as a
representative. Therefore, conservation would benefit from this
proposal.
MS. WARD stressed that agriculture needs to be represented and
farmers in the business of farming need to sit on the new board.
Furthermore, consolidation must occur in the interest of money.
She commented that it has been quite some time since an
appropriation has been received from the legislature to support
agriculture. Yet, the National Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) board takes money from ARLf to fund their board and
executive director with no return to the ARLf. She noted that she
and her husband have used the ARLf in the past. For new farmers,
the gap is tightening. She emphasized the need for low interest
money to support new developing farmers and the need for control of
agricultural lands. "The Division of Lands clings to agricultural
lands as though they were a goldmine of their own." In conclusion,
Ms. Ward urged the committee to consider HB 116 as currently
drafted.
Number 2711
ROBERT FRANKLIN, State President, Alaska Farm Bureau, testified
next via teleconference from Fairbanks. He noted that HB 116 was
discussed at length during the Spring board meeting. Furthermore,
the construction and support of a Board of Agriculture has been on
the resolution board for years. He commented that the Farm Bureau
will continue to work with legislators on this issue. Mr. Franklin
supported HB 116.
STEVE GIBSON, Director, Homer Soil and Water Conservation District,
testified via teleconference from Homer. He noted that first he
would speak for the district. The Homer district has determined
that reorganization may or may not be a good choice, but the
inclusion of the district would be a loss of representation. He
identified the narrowing focus as the main reason for "not coming
on board with the proposed statute." The conservation concerns
for miners, the timber industry, et cetera would not be recognized
as agriculture. Furthermore, there may be geographical problems
with regard to some areas being more represented than others.
MR. GIBSON then spoke as an individual. He believed that there
will be a considerable long-term fiscal impact with HB 116. This
legislation would place many state resources into the ARLf and
discounts many of those assets based upon the nine member board.
That should be reviewed. Additionally, the board is exempted from
the public meeting which may be problematic, especially since the
board is empowered to own its own members' money.
Number 2500
CO-CHAIR OGAN stated that he had received the Association of Soil
and Water Conservation letter dated April 5, 1999, from Omar
Stratman. Co-Chair Ogan asked if Mr. Gibson had seen the letter.
MR. GIBSON said it was brought to his attention this morning. He
commented that the Homer district would second the comments in the
letter.
JACKIE BECKER, Active Member and Officer, Kenai Farm Bureau,
testified via teleconference from Kenai. She informed the
committee that she and her husband were currently planning and
working toward owning their own farm. Ms. Becker supported HB 116
and believed the new board would help save money through
consolidation. Furthermore, the life of the ARLf would be extended
which is important for the next generation of farmers, her son.
Currently, that does not look to be the case. She did not believe
this consolidation would harm the other boards as much as they
think. There is no intent to destroy any other boards.
Additionally, it is important to have active agricultural community
members as part of the board.
Number 2344
SIG RESTAD, Northland Pioneer Grange, testified next via
teleconference from the Mat-Su Valley. Upon the agricultural
committee's review, it is opposed to the current draft of HB 116.
He recognized that all of state government, including the Division
of Agriculture, has room for improvement. However, there is no
reason to "reinvent the wheel." He stated, "A board of seven that
is kind of a quasi unit, away from the regular governmental
procedures does not sound like a way to build up communications
with administration and work with the administration." He
questioned how employees would respond under the proposed
arrangement. With regard to the language referring to the notion
that "land sales and management income may be appropriated," Mr.
Restad did not believe one could be assured such would be
appropriated to the board. He pointed out that there is
legislation from territorial days which utilizes the language
"appropriations shall be made to operate this legislation" and that
is not the case. Furthermore, there are fiscal additions that are
not necessary. He shared some of the concerns of soil and water
conservation with regard to their ability to maintain their work
with only two members. Over many years, the Grange has taken the
stand that the Division of Agriculture has an agricultural
responsibility, a land conservation and development responsibility,
and a consumer responsibility. The division should continue to be
funded through appropriated funds. On the other hand, ARLf was
established to make agricultural related loans and funds generated
were to be used to operate the fund and revolve for the benefit of
future farmers with agricultural loans. He stressed the need to
maintain that intent. There are other ways than HB 116 that could
better accomplish this.
CO-CHAIR OGAN requested that any written testimony should be
provided to the committee.
Number 2131
ART GRISWOLD, End of the Alaska Highway Grange, testified via
teleconference from Delta Junction. Mr. Griswold supported HB 116.
In response to Co-Chair Ogan, Mr. Griswold explained that a grange
is a farmer's paternal organization dating back to the Civil War.
The grange began to help farmers organize and deal with politics.
For example, the National Grange has paid lobbyists to advocate for
legislation and support of agriculture. Currently, there are four
active granges in Alaska.
MR. GRISWOLD commented that he believed Representative James has an
answer to a potential problem. There need to be continuing funds
to develop agriculture. He recognized that the state will not be
able to continue to fund agriculture and therefore, it needs to
become self-sustaining. Mr. Griswold said that he would rather pay
five percent interest to Alaska's fund rather than the federal five
percent.
Number 1920
JIM ELLISON, Publisher, Alaska Farmer Magazine, testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks. Mr. Ellison informed the committee
that he farms stock and fowl. He commented that one must remember
that this is about agriculture. There is no question that a board
can better represent farmers and land conservation. Mr. Ellison
noted that he has farmed and ranched in Alaska for 30 years and has
never had to use state funds. If the desire is for agriculture to
grow in Alaska, there must be people in positions with agricultural
experience. He believed this to be a good start. "The Alaska
Farmer Magazine supports it, maybe not quite just like it's
written, but as what we see is going to be the finished product."
BRUCE WILLARD, Rancher, testified via teleconference from Homer.
He noted that he has been a rancher since 1959. Mr. Willard
supported the Board of Agriculture having people on the board that
are in agriculture. Other than that, more work on the legislation
is necessary. He believed that the folks from the soil and water
conservation boards have some "qualified reasons" for opposition.
Number 1698
DOUG WITTE, Program Coordinator, Alaska Association of Conservation
Districts, testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su Valley.
The aforementioned reference to the letter dated April 5, 1999, was
sent to each member of the House Resources Committee. He explained
that the Alaska Association of Conservation Districts is a
501(c)(3) nonprofit organization which supports the efforts of all
13 Alaskan soil and water conservation districts. These 13
districts represent 65 locally elected supervisors and more than
850 private land owners. At the convention in March, the
association supported the concept of the Board of Agriculture.
However, the association opposes the consolidation of the AKNRCDB
and any of the authorities under AS 41.10 as outlined by Mr.
Rogers. The association supports the appointment of a member of
the Alaska Conservation District movement to one of the nine member
boards. Furthermore, the association does not recognize any cost
savings as a result of the proposed consolidation under HB 116. He
expressed interest in being involved in the fiscal note process.
MR. WITTE commented, "Although a number of out supervisors and/or
cooperators with the districts have a whole-hearted concern and
interest in issues such as the operation management of Matanuska
Maid, Mt. McKinley meats, and ... other assets within the [indisc.]
portfolio; they also have an interest in the day-to-day
responsibilities, marketing and inspection unit within the Division
of Agriculture and they probably have ... an interest in the
policies and procedures that guide ARLf operating, development, and
processing loans." Mr. Witte informed the committee that the main
mission of the association is "to guide the development of lands
classified for agriculture following proven soil and water
conservation methods and that the integrity of the farm and ranch
resources are protected over time." Under AS 38.05.321 a farm
development plan was required as part of a agriculture land sale
contract until two years ago. The farm development plan outlined
the location of the farmsteaders and real property improvements as
well as areas to be managed for commercial timber. These are
obviously tied to the physical features of the farm tract and
easily expressed on a map and referred to as the conservation plan.
That is the document the soil and water conservation districts are
expected to provide the land contract holder. Currently, this is
on a voluntary basis per 11 AC 67.180. Although the farm
development plan under AS 39.05.321 was repealed by SB 109, the
conservation planning requirement remains. Whether land and
resource concerns are agriculture, it is critical to recognize the
physical and environmental limitations. This type of planning is
done to support and offer the type of science and natural resource
management assistance which is practically unavailable to the
average private landowner. Mr. Witte pledged support of future
legislative industry development of agriculture in Alaska.
Number 1295
K. KIRK, Plweger Farms, indicated that HB 116 was a great piece of
legislation. For the first time, people in agriculture will be
making decisions on agriculture. Overall, HB 116 is written well.
He commented, "Fort the first time, since we started this
agriculture program, ... it is meeting the requirements of the
farmer." He recalled the clearing requirements when this program
first began. The farmers received the farms with the trees on the
farms in October. The farmers were told that the first payment had
to be received the next October. This meant that a farm had to be
clear, put into production, and make a profit on the farm within
the first year. The man that made that decision did not know what
farmers had to do. That caused problems and ultimately led to the
state giving a moratorium for a year. Mr. Kirk fully supported
this program.
ROB WELLS, Director, Division of Agriculture, testified via
teleconference from the Mat-Su Valley. Mr. Wells noted that the
division has some concerns, but the division's current position is
neutral. He discussed the meeting schedule of the ARLf board and
the Creamery Corporation. The Creamery Corporation was
purposefully set up an arm's length from ARLf in order that it was
not subject to state procurement rules. This allowed them to run
similar to a private enterprise. That procedure has been
successful to date. He expected that the new Board of Agriculture
under HB 116, due to the board's new responsibilities, would have
more meetings. Therefore, there are concerns regarding the
perceived savings through consolidation of these boards. The
current ARLf board has demonstrated that it is fiscally
conservative as evidenced by the Division of Legislative Audit who
viewed ARLf loan procedures and approval in 1997 to be approaching
what is expected in the private lending sector.
MR. WELLS expressed concern with the CS in regard to the
independent authority of this Board of Agriculture and whether it
is not part of the executive branch. If it is part of the
executive branch, this board would be subject to the Executive
Ethics Act. He noted that the Division of Lands has significant
concerns with the Title 38 land disposal responsibilities in HB
116. Mr. Wells announced that he had pledged to work with
Representative James over the interim to develop solutions.
Number 0592
SCOTT MILLER, Misty Mountain Farms, testified via teleconference
from Delta Junction. He informed the committee that he was the
local Delta Chapter, Farm Bureau President. Mr. Miller supported
HB 116 for three reasons. Firstly, HB 116 brings the current ARLf
interest rates more in line with other lending institutions which
is necessary to support agricultural development. Secondly, there
is no meaningful assistance for the drought situation in Delta
Junction. He indicated it to be in the state's interest to have a
restructuring program for farmers. Thirdly, Mr. Miller supported
the concept of the Board of Agriculture as well as having farmers
directing quality and development. This legislation makes good
sense and would help Alaskan agriculture develop and build its
agricultural industry.
WAYNE BOUWENS, 65 year Alaskan resident; Chairman, Palmer Soil and
Water Conservation District, testified next via teleconference from
the Mat-Su Valley. He noted that he has been involved in
agriculture for most of those 65 years. Mr. Bouwens said that he
would like to see a Division of Agriculture. He commented that the
soil and water conservation movement will suffer under the proposed
new board. In conclusion, Mr. Bouwens said HB 116 needs more work.
Number 0206
CO-CHAIR OGAN announced that he planned to meet with those
interested in this issue in his district individually after the
town meeting scheduled for Saturday, April 17, 1999.
DICK ZOBEL, Member, AKNRCDB, testified via teleconference from the
Mat-Su Valley. He believed Mr. Rogers had outlined the AKNRCDB's
position. He noted that he has been involved with the conservation
districts since 1976 and is therefore, a member of the Wasilla Soil
and Water Conservation District which is a member of the Alaska
Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts. He recalled
the use of the word "power" during the hearing.
TAPE 99-26, SIDE A
MR. ZOBEL stressed that the conservation districts are not power
organizations. These districts are made up of volunteers. Anyone
that enters the local conservation district is sent by the state or
is a private landowner requesting help. Mr. Zobel commented that
the conservation districts do not want power. The comment that HB
116 is an agricultural bill makes the conservation districts, the
state association, and the state board apprehensive because they
have a broader vision than just agriculture. Mr. Zobel turned to
the issue of funding and stressed that there were years that no
funding was received and creative measures were taken to provide
the service. In closing, the bill that would include two people
(from the soil and water conservation districts) would not do the
job.
Number 0244
CO-CHAIR OGAN stated that if anyone wanted to add further comments,
he would allow that at this time.
MR. FRANKLIN requested that Representative James address the
conservation issue. He did not see anything in HB 116 that affects
the districts.
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Assistant to Representative James,
Alaska State Legislature, responded that there is no intention to
take anything away from the districts. The idea is to consolidate
several boards who are not effective standing alone in order to
strengthen the functions of all the boards. How that is
accomplished probably does need work. Therefore, everything is
open for negotiation. Ms. Cotting agreed with Mr. Franklin that
the language in HB 116, as currently written, does not affect the
conservation districts.
MR. FRANKLIN pointed out that there are two different entities, 13
soil and water conservation districts and the state soil and water
conservation board.
PETE FELLMAN, Delta Dairy Farmer, informed the committee that he
has been actively farming for 20 years and has been involved with
soil and water conservation for that time as well. He noted that
he was testifying on his own behalf, although he is staff to
Representative Harris. Mr. Fellman turned to the makeup of the
board. One of the members must be of a general business background
which could be in mining, logging, fishing, et cetera. Two of the
members will be actively involved with soil and water conservation
districts. One of the members would be the commissioner of DNR,
who would have statewide interest. Therefore, four members would
be farmers or from farmer groups. Currently, there are 13
conservation districts while only four districts are represented by
people living in that district. The number proposed under HB 116
would have eight people from the 13 districts who could be on the
conservation board. Therefore, these groups will become more valid
and more fully represent the state. Mr. Fellman emphasized that
this will not affect most of the money that comes to soil and water
conservation which comes through a federal division, NRCS. He
indicated that there is no controversy surrounding the ARLf and the
need to move the interest in line with the Farm Service Agency
(FSA) which can help farmers during such situations as droughts.
He referred to the letter from Omar Stratman(ph); this will not
affect the districts.
CO-CHAIR OGAN acknowledged that this is a major change in the way
business is done in agriculture. He noted his support of
agriculture due to its importance in everyone's life. HB 116 was
held in committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|