Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/01/2000 02:10 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
March 1, 2000
2:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative John Cowdery, 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. 290
"An Act relating to stranded gas pipeline carriers and to the
intrastate regulation by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska of
pipelines and pipeline facilities of stranded gas pipeline
carriers."
- MOVED CSHB 290(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 56
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
prohibiting certain initiatives relating to wildlife.
- MOVED HJR 56 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 403
"An Act requiring certain vessels to prepare and provide oil
discharge prevention and contingency plans or to provide oil
discharge prevention and contingency plans prepared in
conjunction with a nonprofit association established for spill
response and restoration purposes; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 290
SHORT TITLE: STRANDED GAS PIPELINE CARRIERS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/14/00 1924 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/14/00 1924 (H) O&G, RES, FIN
1/27/00 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
1/27/00 (H) Heard & Held
1/27/00 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
2/01/00 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 17
2/01/00 (H) Heard & Held
2/01/00 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
2/10/00 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 17
2/10/00 (H) Heard & Held
2/10/00 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
2/15/00 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 17
2/15/00 Text (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
2/17/00 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 17
2/17/00 (H) Moved CSHB 290(O&G) Out of Committee
2/17/00 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
2/21/00 2251 (H) O&G RPT CS(O&G) NT 2DP 2NR 5AM
2/21/00 2251 (H) DP: PHILLIPS, WHITAKER; NR: GREEN,
2/21/00 2251 (H) BRICE; AM: DYSON, HARRIS, SMALLEY,
2/21/00 2251 (H) PORTER, KEMPLEN
2/21/00 2251 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
2/21/00 2252 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (REV, DNR)
2/21/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/21/00 (H) Heard & Held
2/21/00 (H) MINUTE(RES)
3/01/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 56
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: WILDLIFE INITIATIVES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/16/00 2206 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/16/00 2206 (H) RES, JUD, FIN
2/28/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/28/00 (H) <Bill Postponed to 3/1/00>
3/01/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN SHIVELY, Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Avenue, Fifth Floor
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1724
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 290.
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MORGAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 56.
SANDRA MATTIE
P.O. Box 18
Ester, Alaska 99725
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 56.
PETE BUIST, Co-Chair
Coalition for the Alaskan Way of Life
P.O. Box 71561
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 56.
WAYNE HEIMER, Board Member
National Foundation for North American Wild Sheep
1098 Chena Pump Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 56.
STANLEY NED
Tanana Chiefs Conference Incorporated
122 First Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 56.
PATRICK WRIGHT, President
Scientific Management of Alaska's Resource Treasures
P.O. Box 244001
Anchorage, Alaska 99524
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 56.
NANCY HILLSTRAND
P.O. Box 674
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 56.
JOE MATTIE, Board Member
Alaska Trappers Association
P.O. Box 18
Ester, Alaska 99725
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 56.
BILL HAGAR, Member of Executive Committee
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association
431 Gaffney Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 56.
SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate
Alaska Conservation Voters
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 56.
DICK BISHOP, Vice President
Alaska Outdoor Council
211 Fourth Street, Number 302A
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 56.
WAYNE REGELIN, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the ADF&G does not support
HJR 56.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-17, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR MASEK called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 2:10 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Hudson, Masek, Cowdery, Harris,
Morgan, Barnes, Joule and Kapsner. Representative Whitaker
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
[The following comments pertain to HJR 53.]
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to an article in the Anchorage
Daily News written by a Juneau correspondent, dated February 29,
2000, entitled "Wildlife is Food, Bill Says," which claims that
Representative Barnes forced HJR 53 out of committee over
Representative Hudson's objection. [See minutes for February 28,
2000.] She maintained that she does not remember Representative
Hudson objecting to the resolution moving out of committee, but
rather he stated that he had a concern. She indicated her
understanding that he was going to address his concern in the
House Judiciary Standing Committee, next committee of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES also pointed out that it is common for a
committee member to object, but it does not mean that the
committee member necessarily objects to the bill moving out of
committee; rather, the member wants his or her objection on the
record. She stressed that she does not feel in any way that she
forced HJR 53 out of committee. She also clarified that the
words "enhanced" and "developed" were discussed at length by the
committee with an attorney present. She stated that she believes
the person who wrote the article owes an apology, because the
committee worked at length on the issue. She stressed that she
is very disappointed with the article. [End of discussion
relating to HJR 53.]
HB 290 - STRANDED GAS PIPELINE CARRIERS
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 290, "An Act relating to stranded gas pipeline
carriers and to the intrastate regulation by the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska of pipelines and pipeline facilities of
stranded gas pipeline carriers."
[The bill had been heard on February 21, 2000, after which it was
assigned to a subcommittee chaired by Representative Barnes.
Before the committee was CSHB 290(O&G). However, a proposed
committee substitute (CS), version 1-LS1269\I, Chenoweth,
2/25/00, had been drafted.]
Number 0447
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out that the [subcommittee] working
group had consisting of herself, Representative Hudson and
Representative Joule. They had agreed upon four amendments that
are incorporated in the proposed CS. She read into the record
the "issue, resolution and effect of amendment" for each of the
four amendments:
[Amendment 1]: In drafting the House Special Committee
on Oil and Gas committee substitute, changes were made
to the proposed amendment language, dropping the
phrase, "that individually consume" and replacing it
with "in which the consumption by customers is."
Additionally, the phrase "and each request for service
by a public utility" was also dropped.
The resolution ... : Restoring the dropped phrases was
agreed to by all working group members. These changes
restore the language in the bill to conform with the
original amendment language.
Amendment 2: The Chairman of the House Special
Committee on Oil and Gas introduced this section as an
amendment, with the stated intention of providing
explicit direction to the commissioner of the
Department of Natural Resources to consider whether
royalty oil or gas to be taken in kind may be necessary
to meet present or projected intrastate domestic or
industrial demand, and to require legislative approval,
by law, before the commissioner takes any action toward
the taking or disposal of royalty oil or gas.
The resolution ...: The working group participants
concur that CSHB 290(O&G), Section 1, language related
to policy direction for the commissioner is duplicative
of existing statutory requirements in AS 38.05.182 and
AS 38.05.183(d). The working group participants also
agreed that the language in part (b) has unintended
consequences which could prohibit the DNR commissioner
from performing any act related to the taking and
disposition of royalties, including accepting state
royalty checks from producers without an explicit act
of law. This was agreed to be untenable, and the
working group participants agreed to recommend that
Section 1 of the CS [CSHB 290(O&G)] be deleted from the
bill. Effect of the amendment: the amended language
removes Section 1 from the current CS.
Amendment 3: The administration believed the bill's
original language modifying AS 38.35.120, the Right of
Way Leasing Act, introduced unnecessary ambiguity
regarding the state pipeline coordinator's office's
oversight of the LNG plant and marine terminal.
Additional concerns had been raised by the Yukon
Pacific Corporation that the bill's original language
in this same section would, in some way, prejudice
their existing right-of-way lease for the Anderson Bay
site.
The sponsor group concern: The sponsor group's intent
in the bill's original language was to exclude the LNG
plant and marine terminal only from the common-carriage
covenant requirement under the Right of Way Leasing
Act, and not to modify any current existing regulatory
oversight or to affect any existing right-of-way lease.
Resolution: The Department of Law has drafted language
which resolves the concern to the satisfaction of all
parties - the Administration (SPCO), the sponsor group
and the Yukon Pacific Corporation. The amended
language removes the requirement for the LNG plant and
marine terminal to be in common carriage under the
Right of Way Leasing Act, without affecting the SPCO's
delegated authority under the Act, thus Amendment 3.
Amendment 4: The Section 8 language. The issue is the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) believes that
intrastate tariffs for the gas pipeline should be
calculated utilizing the tariff methodology from the
Pacific Utilities Act (42.05), which is a different
methodology than that provided for by the Pipeline Act
(AS 42.06). According to the RCA, a utility rate-
making methodology will result in more affordable
tariffs for the intrastate transportation of gas than
will the Pipeline Act rate-making methodology.
The sponsor group concern: The sponsor group believes
that this requirement creates a regulatory hybrid which
reduces the clarity and certainty intended in this
legislation. The underlying statutory requirements for
tariffs under both the Public Utilities Act and the
Pipeline Act are the same. AS 42.05.381(a) under the
Public Utilities Act and AS 42.06.370(a) under the
Pipeline Act both impose the identical requirement that
tariff rates be "just and reasonable." The sponsor
group believes the appropriate time for the detailed
determination of what should or should not be allowed
in an intrastate tariff will be when filed tariffs are
before the RCA for its consideration as to whether they
are just and reasonable. This section of the bill
needlessly creates uncertainty about the intended
regulatory regime. ...
[Resolution]: The working group could not reach a
consensus on this particular amendment; ... therefore,
it has been removed from the bill. And I believe that
the whole question of any detailed tariff methodology
in this piece of proposed legislation is premature at
this time.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said the focus of this legislation is and
should continue to be the removal of commercial regulatory
impediments to the successful marketing of LNG for export to the
Asian market and in-state use. The original legislation was
purposefully kept simple and targeted to those things that needed
to be changed for the project to be taken seriously in the
marketplace. She concluded:
We did not try to address all the various issues which
will ultimately come up if we have a project, nor could
we, at this point; it's simply too early. Thus, those
are the reasons for the four specific amendments, which
are contained in the proposed CS before you.
Number 1035
CO-CHAIR HUDSON made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for HB
290, version 1-LS1269\I, Chenoweth, 2/25/00, as a work draft.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
CO-CHAIR MASEK thanked the working group.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON commended Representative Barnes for bringing the
appropriate parties to the table. He said that he thinks they
have met their charge.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered if the use of gas in the pipeline
would be limited to anyone along the line.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES replied no, nor does it limit the size of
the pipeline being built.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered how much money will be spent to
build an LNG facility that will accommodate the pipeline.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES explained that before beginning debate on
the original enabling legislation, HB 393, the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) and the Department of Revenue (DOR), who
had hired a consultant, had come before the legislature and
provide the facts on the costs of the pipeline. She indicated
that Commissioner John Shively of the DNR was present and could
comment on that.
Number 1336
JOHN SHIVELY, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources,
stated that the estimates have varied quite a bit. He explained
that when they started the project the estimates varied between
$11 and $15 billion for the whole project. He pointed out that
one of the major efforts of the sponsor group is to bring the
cost down, because they recognize that the economics on the upper
end of those figures is not realistic in terms of being able to
sell LNG.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered where the primary field would be
initially with the gas, and if there is a sequence of how that
might be utilized.
MR. SHIVELY explained that the gas primarily is at Prudhoe Bay.
He also pointed out that Point Thompson has significant reserves
that could be tied in, and there are other gas-prone areas on the
North Slope that have not been explored yet.
Number 1444
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER indicated that his original concern was
that it be established that there be no higher priority for in-
kind royalty gas than in-state usage for both the near term and
the long term. He explained that it is not possible for him to
ascertain whether or not the proposed CS accomplishes that goal
at this point. He mentioned that the other top priority at the
time the bill was initially discussed was future access rules,
and that those future access rules be fair and equitable. He
stressed that without having more time to review the proposed CS,
he cannot determine that the proposed CS provides for that.
However, understanding that time was of the essence, he indicated
he had no objection to the proposed CS moving from the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she does not believe that the
subcommittee did anything to the bill that would preclude in-
state use, nor did they do anything that denied access to the
pipeline. She believes they came out of subcommittee with a fair
bill, and it was her understanding that the bill was to be a
simple regulatory bill to allow the projects to move forward with
some certainty in contracts, without it being too cumbersome.
She believes the bill does that, she concluded.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER clarified that there was no inference to
the proposed CS having a negative effect, but simply that he has
not had time to understand the ramifications of the inherent
changes. He reiterated that he has no objection to its moving.
Number 1650
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE commented that there has been a lot of press
over the past year about the Alaska Gasline Port Authority and
what they have tried to do, because it involves the boroughs
along the route: Valdez, Fairbanks and the North Slope. He said
he has looked over the letter from the Alaska Gasline Port
Authority, and it is of some concern to him that the people who
have a big impact on the project and are trying to get something
going are not onboard.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated she has also received the letter
from the Alaska Gasline Port Authority regarding HB 290. She
reiterated that she does not believe that anything in the bill
limits the size of the pipeline or the amount of gas that can be
used in-state. Nor does she believe that the Alaska State
Legislature, at any time, has taken a position of supporting any
plan set forth by the Alaska Gasline Port Authority, the sponsor
group, Yukon Pacific Corporation or anyone else. The legislature
has worked on enabling legislation that will ensure that the gas
is in the marketplace in a timely manner, and that will give the
commissioner the tools that are necessary if and when a project
of any size or scope is able to go forward. Writing a piece of
legislation that gives one an advantage over another is not in
Alaska's best interest. She believes it is in Alaska's best
interest for those groups that propose a project that is viable
under any of the proposed pieces of legislation that they go
forth to the commissioner with their facts and once they are able
to persuade him then he can come before the legislature.
CO-CHAIR MASEK referred to the letter from the Alaska Gasline
Port Authority and stated:
This concern has never been discussed in conversation
with my office, or during any meeting of the working
group. It was made clear at last Monday's [February
21] hearing that any concerned party was to meet with
the working group to have concerns discussed and
possible amendments drafted. During the working group
meeting last Thursday in Commissioner Shively's office,
the Port Authority said they no longer had concerns
with HB 290 and that they neither support nor oppose
the bill. Nothing in HB 290 limits or restricts the
in-state use of natural gas. HB 290 is not designed to
support any particular project. Before any North Slope
natural gas pipeline project can proceed, no matter the
size of the pipe, certain changes to existing statutes
are required.
Number 1995
CO-CHAIR HUDSON said he would like to reiterate what
Representative Barnes stated. There was no intent in the
legislation to show any preference or to create anything that
provided a preferential opportunity for any contractor or
operator to build the pipeline. He said there was also full
support for in-state use to be a high priority, if not the
highest priority. He asked that the people who wrote the letter
give the committee something specific to look at, which they can
probably take a look at in the next committee of referral or on
the House floor. He clarified that the size was not intended to
be confining, but rather it was intended to express a fair and
equitable process. He indicated that he does not know where the
problem is coming from, but that it sounds as if "they" are
saying that the Port Authority does not support HB 290 since the
bill is designed to support a project size that could
substantially limit or restrict the in-state use of natural gas.
He wondered how that is possible since nothing has been received
that would show how or where that would be the case. He stressed
that the bill had not been altered appreciably. The intent of
the working group and the subcommittee chair was to try to bring
everyone to the table and come up with language that was as
neutral and accommodating as possible, which believes they
achieved.
Number 2113
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked whether Amendment 3 gives the Joint
Pipeline Office the oversight for the terminal and pipeline.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES answered, "That is correct."
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER indicated that he is also puzzled by the
letter from the Alaska Gasline Port Authority, and is still
looking for a reason why they object. He pointed out that the
bill, as originally proposed, restricted possible access and
usage of in-state gas, but that has been eliminated and
maintained through the proposed CS. He noted that the stranded
gas portion of the title was removed, so that a project that did
not require falling under the auspices of HB 393 would not be
required to participate under the rules of HB 393. He pointed
out that it is possible that there may be projects, such as the
Alaska Gasline Port Authority [proposes], that do not require the
tax break associated with HB 393. He stated that HB 290 has been
greatly improved, and he is in support of moving it from
committee.
Number 2268
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY commented on the letter where it says that
the Alaska Gasline Port Authority would have as much gas as
possible used and consumed within the state, with the excess
being available to Asia. He said it seems that the use of the
gas in-state would be a very low percentage, to make the project
go. He wondered how much of the 12 percent royalty would be
necessary for in-state needs. In looking at Alaska's history, he
noted, the in-state needs have been dealt with by the state with
its share of the royalty. He indicated that he does not
understand the letter, and suggested probably about 3 percent of
the line's capacity would be used for in-state use. He pointed
out that there always have been power cost problems for rural
Alaska, and he believes it would be feasible to shift some of the
LNG to rural Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move CSHB 290 [version 1-
LS1269\I, Chenoweth, 2/25/00] out of committee with individual
recommendations and the attached fiscal notes; he asked for
unanimous consent. There being no objection, CSHB 290(RES) was
moved from the House Resources Standing Committee.
HJR 56 - CONST. AM: WILDLIFE INITIATIVES
Number 2525
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 56, proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska prohibiting certain
initiatives relating to wildlife.
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HJR
56, informed the committee that he had introduced the resolution
in light of what happened in 1996 on the same-day-airborne
initiative and in 1998 on the wolf initiative. He read his
sponsor statement:
This legislation removes wildlife management from the
ballot initiative process in Alaska. The framers of
our constitution restricted the ballot initiative
process in Article XI, Section 7, of the Alaska
Constitution. Section 7 exempts certain subjects from
the ballot and referendum process. I believe wildlife
management is an appropriate subject for exemption.
Our wildlife interests are best managed in Alaska by
Alaskans. Removing wildlife from the ballot and
referendum process will ensure that wildlife decisions
are made in Alaska based on sound science, prudent
management, and in an open and fair process. The
alternative is a repeat of the last two elections,
where special-interest groups from the Lower 48, using
emotion and political agendas, attacked Alaska's
outstanding wildlife management system.
Alaska is not alone in this fight. In 1998, the
citizens of Utah and Minnesota passed constitutional
amendments to protect wildlife management and hunting
in their states. Presently, there are constitutional
amendments to protect wildlife management and
traditional wildlife uses working their way through the
state legislatures of Arizona, Idaho and North Dakota.
Legislative counsel has advised that the legislature
possesses the power to amend the Alaska constitution,
subject to a vote of the people, but does not have the
power to make sweeping revisions that radically alter
the powers of governmental branches. Counsel believes
HJR 56 amounts to an amendment of the constitution, not
a revision, [which is] within the power of the
legislature.
Number 2780
SANDRA MATTIE testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, noting
that she is a local business owner and is involved with the
Coalition for the Alaskan Way of Life (CAWL), the Caribou Calf
Protection Program, and the Alaska Trappers Association. She
indicated that recent firsthand experience in the 1998 ballot
issue over Proposition 9 had made her aware that the biggest
threat to Alaska's wildlife comes from animal rights extremists
from both outside and inside Alaska, who are abusing the state's
precious initiative process to shackle the state's ability to
properly manage fish and game.
MS. MATTIE said steps need to be taken to protect the state's
wildlife treasures for Alaskans as well as visitors to the state
who have a true concern for making sure that the state's wildlife
is a lasting and abundant resource. She said she believes that
the landslide outcome of Proposition 9 has proven the concern of
the vast majority of Alaskans with a 64 percent victory; it was a
victory that came at a very high price in dollars and time to
many individuals forced to participate in an arena that never
should have involved wildlife issues in the first place. She
stated that the Alaska system of wildlife management has worked
well over the years.
MS. MATTIE said the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), the
Board of Game and the Alaska State Legislature have worked well
together to preserve Alaska's wildlife for everyone to enjoy.
She indicated animal rights groups are using "ballot-box biology"
to circumvent the process that has been used for decades. She
suggested that when special-interest groups do not get their way,
it proves that the system is working. She stated that HJR 56 is
fair for all parties concerned, because it makes the initiative
process off-limits to hunters as well as animal rights groups.
HJR 56 only protects wildlife, and that is exactly what the
wildlife in the state needs. She added that she strongly
supports the passage of HJR 56.
Number 2911
PETE BUIST, Co-Chair, Coalition for the Alaskan Way of Life
(CAWL), testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He stated
that CAWL is a unique and diverse group spanning both rural and
urban wildlife interests. In its initial effort to oppose
Proposition 9, the wolf-snare initiative on the 1998 ballot, it
organized 150,000 registered voters. He urged the committee to
support HJR 56. He said that after seeing the damage that large,
well-funded animal rights groups have tried to do by ballot
initiatives in the last two general elections, CAWL believes that
it is important that Representative Morgan's resolution be passed
and brought to the people of Alaska to vote on. Alaska's
wildlife is simply too important to all Alaskans to be managed on
the basis of a series of popular votes; one has only to look at
the current political manipulation of the wolf management issue.
TAPE 00-17, SIDE B
MR. BUIST further stated that wildlife ballot initiatives can
lend themselves to extremely disingenuous campaigns to gain
popularity, and the animal rights groups that commonly sponsor
them do not seem at all constrained by any truth-in-advertising
laws. He also pointed out that wildlife ballot initiatives lend
themselves to the fundraising efforts of the animal rights
groups. He stressed that Alaska's wildlife enthusiasts simply
cannot compete with those groups; although they raised enough
money to fight the wolf-snare initiative, he wondered why they
should be forced to do it every two years just to defend their
way of life. He concluded that by supporting HJR 56,
[legislators] can help to ensure that Alaska's wildlife is
managed by science tempered with public discussion, not the ugly
politics of popularity and big-money campaigns.
Number 2851
WAYNE HEIMER, Board Member, National Foundation for North
American Wild Sheep, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks.
He stated that his organization is a nonprofit conservation
organization that is hunting-oriented and has 8,000 members,
approximately 400 of whom live in Alaska. He explained that they
believe initiatives are peaceful forms of social revolution that
are appropriate when the electorate cannot assert its will
through the established process. He added that he is also a
retired wildlife biologist with 25 years' experience with ADF&G;
his last five years at the department were spent researching the
history of state and federal wildlife management regulations. He
stressed that the wildlife management system in Alaska is perhaps
the most open of all state regulatory processes; hence, it is the
least likely to need legitimate initiative-type remedies and is
the most logical candidate for removal from the initiative
process. He encouraged passage of HJR 56.
Number 2764
STANLEY NED, Tanana Chiefs Conference Incorporated (TCC),
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support of HJR 56.
He said TCC hopes HJR 56 will make sure that wildlife does not
become another bargaining chip for special-interest groups. He
pointed out that it is also fair for all parties concerned,
because it makes the initiative process off-limits to hunters and
animal rights groups alike; it only protects wildlife.
Number 2715
PATRICK WRIGHT, President, Scientific Management of Alaska's
Resource Treasures (SMART), testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. He explained that SMART is a nonprofit organization
with a major thrust to educate interested individuals about the
wisdom of professional and scientific management of fish and
game. He stated that SMART fully supports HJR 56. He pointed
out that SMART is greatly involved with preserving the Public
Trust Doctrine embodied in Article XIII of the Constitution of
the State of Alaska. The Public Trust Doctrine maintains that
government has the duty, on behalf of the people, to protect,
manage and conserve renewable wildlife resources; therefore, that
responsibility cannot be delegated to the electorate for
determination by popular vote. Therefore, HJR 56, proposing a
constitutional amendment to finally stop extreme groups from
abusing Alaska's democratic game management system, is a
significant first step in bringing sanity back to the process.
MR. WRIGHT indicated "ballot-box biology" is not the way to
manage Alaska's natural resources. Alaska has an extensive open
and public process by which to determine wildlife management
policies and regulations. Alaskans should use this system rather
than deciding these critical issues on the basis of emotion from
30-second sound bites. He concluded that SMART stands with
Representative Morgan in defense of Alaska's wildlife in the
reasonable and systematic management of time-tested, established
methods.
Number 2561
NANCY HILLSTRAND testified via teleconference from Homer. She
stated that she believes in a balanced wildlife management that
serves the people for common use, and which protects healthy
wildlife populations for multiple species. She explained that
initiatives may not be the ultimate avenue for wildlife
management, but maybe [legislators] should look at the larger
issue this uncovers; she asked them to ask the questions, "Why is
this occurring? Why are wildlife initiatives happening?" She
said the majority of Alaskans have not been allowed to pay into
wildlife management and therefore have been given the backseat in
policy. It is healthy to have people rise up and be heard,
debate the issue, and come up with a solution; this is what
democracy is all about. Rather than trying to "squash" the
outcry of the people, [lawmakers] should hear what they are
trying to say, in order to try to figure out a solution and come
up with a consensus that serves all Alaskans, so that they are
not setting up special privileges and exclusive rights, which the
constitution abhors. She urged the committee to look at what the
real problem is and to look at what they can do to come to a
better understanding and balance, so that there aren't these
battles all of the time.
JOE MATTIE, Board Member, Alaska Trappers Association, testified
via teleconference from Fairbanks. A local business owner who is
involved with the Coalition for the Alaska Way of Life and the
Caribou Calf Protection Program, Mr. Mattie explained that he has
been a resident of Alaska for 30 years and has spent the last 20
years traveling throughout Alaska pursuing an occupation as a fur
buyer. He has had the good fortune of meeting countless people
and their families, in many villages and communities. He noted
that on a typical fur-buying day, he would land on a village
airstrip and would be met by several trappers who would take him
to the community hall; soon the hall would be filled with
trappers who would visit and share information on fur prices and
concerns about wildlife in their area.
MR. MATTIE pointed out that young people learn about the pride
and dignity that comes from providing for themselves and later
for their families; he has watched them grow up and become
productive adults. He stressed that Alaska's wildlife and way of
life are being threatened by multimillion-dollar animal rights
organizations outside of Alaska that, he believes, abuse Alaska's
ballot initiative process for their own selfish and deceptive
reasons. He stated that he certainly believes HJR 56 should be
passed if making wildlife issues exempt from the initiative
process is what it takes to protect Alaska's wildlife.
Number 2299
BILL HAGAR, Member of Executive Committee, Alaska Wildlife
Conservation Association, testified via teleconference from
Fairbanks. He thanked Representative Morgan for introducing HJR
56. He indicated that he is one of the 90,000 licensed and paid
members who attempt to hunt and harvest Alaska's game resources
and also spend time viewing. He explained that harvesting game
does not and will not exclude viewing. HJR 56 speaks properly to
ADF&G's constant cry to remove game management from politics. He
concluded that HJR 56 is long overdue and has complete rural and
urban support.
CO-CHAIR MASEK called an at-ease at 2:14 p.m.; she called the
committee back to order at 2:15 p.m. She pointed out a letter
that was sent to the committee from Kenneth Jacobus, who was
unable to testify, stating that he supports HJR 56 and HJR 53.
Number 2079
SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate, Alaska Conservation Voters
(ACV), stated:
Our 40 Alaskan organizations and business members
represent over 22,000 registered Alaskan voters. We
have consistently opposed efforts by the legislature to
limit Alaskan's constitutional right to participate
directly in the law-making process through the
initiative process, and for that reason we are opposed
to this resolution.
We are opposed for several reasons. While this
proposed amendment to the constitution appears to be
limited to initiatives dealing with wildlife, on a more
fundamental level it represents an erosion of public
access to government. As we've heard from other folks
testifying today, we can debate this "ballot-box
biology" issue endlessly, but when one group of
Alaskans are denied an opportunity to address an issue
they strongly believe in by the initiative process,
then the freedom of all Alaskans to express their will
through direct democracy is threatened.
Public policy issues addressed by the initiative
process receive far more discussion, far more debate,
than many of the hundreds of bills that are passed out
of this building each year. The process, on the
initiative process, is out in the open and at contrast
to the often-clandestine process that can occur with
some bills as they become law.
Supporters of this resolution endorse placing the
scientific process of wildlife management firmly back
into the hands of [ADF&G] and the Board of Game. Let's
remember that [AF&G] clearly needs to take their
direction from the legislature, and the Board of Game
essentially is handpicked by the legislature. Thus,
the initiative process is one major way that all
Alaskans can perform an important check on the power of
the legislature.
Alaskans are being asked in this amendment to
relinquish their right to vote on wildlife management
issues on the grounds that we're not competent enough
to do so, we don't understand. Instead, we are being
told to trust those decisions resulting, right now,
from an unbalanced process that currently promotes the
principles of intensive game management and the values
of consumptive users to the near-exclusion of other
users of the resource.
I would agree with the other folks that have testified
that our constitution's sustained yield and multiple
use provisions have served all Alaskans and our
wildlife quite well; it protects the interest of all
beneficial users. Those same framers of our
constitution who were wise enough to put Article VIII
into it also included the initiative process. They had
faith in the ability of Alaskans to make informed
decisions through the initiative process, and obviously
that faith that our framers had is not being shared by
the legislature.
The legislature, as we know, has ways to reverse the
initiative process if they see fit; SB 74 that passed
into law last year was a fine example. So it is within
the legislature's power to correct any legitimate
problems that might result from the initiative process.
Clearly the system is not broken, and clearly the
wildlife of Alaska are not going to be safer if this
tool of democracy is taken away from the citizens of
Alaska.
Number 1876
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to HJR 53, HB 349, and Ms.
Schrader's position statement on those issues where it states,
"Alaska Conservation Voters supports wildlife management actions
that are based on unbiased scientific studies." He asked why it
was omitted in her position statement on HJR 56.
MS. SCHRADER responded that in her position statement on the
other two issues, she is suggesting that the management decisions
should be based on unbiased science and should reflect the values
of most Alaskans. It gets to the debate of whether it is science
or politics that is running the wildlife management system, and
she believes that everyone would agree it is a combination of
both.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE agreed that there is a lot to be said for
its being a combination of both. He said initiatives come around
when there is little money; while there are many pockets to draw
from in the Alaskan community, those pockets have limits, but
they can draw on the many pockets of the nation. He explained
that the ability to be for or against something gets unevenly
tipped, and it is oftentimes those who feel strongly about an
issue who put their money where their mouths are and beat the
initiative back.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE stated that the only constitutional
amendment that he thought he could support was the one on
subsistence, and [the legislature] has gone around and around on
that issue. He indicated that it comes to the point where he
sees how the scales get tipped. He has a little bit of faith in
the people that are appointed by the Governor and approved by the
legislature, he said. He pointed out that there is a process by
which people can bring a background of expertise to deal with the
issues. As he gives more consideration to the concept of taking
wildlife management out of the initiative process, he realizes
that [people] can still use the legislative process, the board
process, the advisory board process and all of the offices within
to address the issues. He said that he does believe that ADF&G
has done as apt a job as it can, and that is where the politics
come in.
MS. SCHRADER responded that the key word is "balance." She
referred back to Ms. Hillstrand's question asking what the real
problem is and what is bringing the initiatives to the ballot.
She stated that it is because many Alaskans, when it came down to
the same-day-airborne initiative, felt that the balance of the
Board of Game, the advisory committees and ADF&G - which is given
a certain direction by the legislature's intensive game
management program - was being lost.
Number 1508
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE indicated balance can mean so many different
things to different people. He pointed out that on any given
ballot initiative, nothing says that a like percentage of people
who signed the initiative have to be representative of all the
voting districts; there might be one signature from two-thirds of
the district, which does not mean that there is a balance
regarding how the people around the state feel on the issue. He
concluded that balance can be skewed. If an initiative required
[signatures] from 5 or 10 percent of [voters of] the whole state,
it would have a harder time getting on the ballot, but would be
reflective of the whole state.
MS. SCHRADER pointed out that all registered voters have an
opportunity at the polls to let their voices be heard. Although
they could debate the whole petition [signature-]gathering
situation, the bottom line remains that all Alaskans who are
registered to vote can vote and make their views heard that way.
Number 1393
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated that certainly every Alaskan that
is registered to vote can vote, but it is also true that many
people believe that there was false advertising and false
information given out to the voting public [on prior
initiatives]. She clarified that the legislature does not
handpick the Board of Game, but rather the Governor submits names
to the legislature to be confirmed or not confirmed. She
referred to Ms. Schrader's comments about the legislature's
restriction of the people's voice through the initiative process.
She pointed out that the founding fathers, in Article XI, Section
7, of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, clearly laid out
the restrictions on the initiative and referendum process. She
read from Article XI, Section 7:
The initiative shall not be used to dedicate revenues,
make or repeal appropriations, create courts, define
the jurisdiction of courts or prescribe their rules, or
enact local or special legislation. The referendum
shall not be applied to dedications of revenue, to
appropriations, to local or special legislation, or to
laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health, or safety.
Number 1151
MS. SCHRADER said that her choice of words was not skillful when
she stated that the Board of Game is handpicked by the
legislature. She explained that she is very aware of that
process, and she is aware of the constitution as it relates to
restrictions on the initiative process. However, the fact
remains that when a governor proposes a candidate who is not a
strong supporter of consumptive use, that person will have
difficulty in getting confirmed by the legislature. Many
Alaskans feel that there is not balance in the process of
wildlife management and that they need to preserve their rights
under the constitution to address that imbalance through the
initiative process.
CO-CHAIR MASEK noted that in the debates she has witnessed, the
question that keeps coming up has to do with access and
restrictions on hunting and fishing. She pointed out that the
restrictions on the people who have lived in Alaska for many
years in the rural areas are being affected by issues like the
wolf initiative. She stated that there have been no restrictions
on wildlife viewing and photography, yet there have been many
restrictions with regard to hunting.
Number 0999
MS. SCHRADER pointed out that wildlife viewing and photography
are restricted. For example, Pack Creek is closed to viewing
from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that the restrictions set at Pack
Creek are so that people do not get eaten by a bears. She added
that she herself has a serious conflict of interest, because her
daughter is a photographer and believes that wildlife should only
be photographed.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON referred to Ms. Schrader's mention that the
question is, constitutionally, whether it should be through
politics or through science. He suggested that these kinds of
issues should be based on science, and then the question is how
to get the best science. He views the legislative process as
being out in the open, he said, where the public has the right to
see what [legislators] do, what they say and who testifies before
them.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON suggested that the question is whether sound
science is better served by having the public vote on an
initiative - where the science has not been revealed but public
relations have been - or whether the public should vote on the
legislators themselves. He pointed out that if the public does
not agree with his input, then he will definitely hear about it,
and it impacts his daily living: they send letters and give
testimony. He stated that it is not just a question of trying to
disrupt the public's opportunity to participate; rather, he
believes it is not in the public's best interests to have it
decided on the basis of popularity or a sound bite.
MS. SCHRADER pointed out another problem: scientists have data
that can disagree. In McGrath, there is not enough data to
determine what the problems are. She stressed the need for more
sound science instead of just going ahead with wolf control. She
indicated that when the legislature passes intensive game
management statutes that are so restrictive, it simply ties the
hands of all the wildlife biologists, who are unable to apply
their data because of being restricted by intensive game-
management statutes.
Number 0492
DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), stated
that the AOC strongly supports HJR 56. He stressed that "ballot-
box biology" is not the way to manage renewable resources.
WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, pointed out that ballot
initiatives in wildlife management have been used across the
nation and have created some significant problems in several
states. He stated that the ADF&G does not support HJR 56 because
it fails to recognize that there is more to management of the
public's wildlife resource than the application of science and
technical expertise. Wildlife management must also consider and
respond to the values held by the public about how they want the
wildlife to be managed.
MR. REGELIN told members that science-based management should be
responsive to the goals and objectives of the Alaskan people for
the conservation and utilization of their wildlife resources.
There are many options for wildlife management that are
biologically sustainable and, therefore, consistent with the
sustained yield principle. There are many different views, and
the initiative process is the most direct way for the public to
sort out their views on public policies; taking it away is not
something that the department can support. He indicated that
wildlife management does involve scientific and special
expertise, but so does administration and other public functions.
There appears to be no reason to single out wildlife management
as a subject too complex for the public to make policy decisions
about through the initiative process.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered if Mr. Regelin was aware of the
initiative process that chose to allocate fish.
MR. REGELIN replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether Mr. Regelin had supported
that.
MR. REGELIN replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES suggested that what Mr. Regelin had just
said flies in the face of his testimony.
TAPE 00-18, SIDE A
Number 0057
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether the advisory committees and
the Board of Fisheries and Board of Game, during deliberations,
take into consideration the public sentiment at the time, in
addition to science.
MR. REGELIN replied that ADF&G tries to provide a scientific
basis for groups like the advisory committees to make sound
decisions, and it is their job to meld in the public and social
aspects. He explained that the advisory committees in the rural
communities are very representative of the people. In the larger
communities, the people feel that [these groups] are not as
representative of the community at large because they are so
heavily dominated by hunters and trappers. He indicated that
when the issue gets to the Board of Game, anyone can put in a
proposal or come and testify, and then the Board of Game listens
to all of the different public input and the biology, and makes a
decision. He believes the system works, he concluded, and it is
one which he is proud of.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE indicated that he believes there are
examples where the larger communities are not dominated by
hunters and trappers, but rather have strong conservationists.
He also said that he believes the whole process, all the way from
the advisory committees to the legislature, is under pretty heavy
public scrutiny and guidance.
CO-CHAIR MASEK closed the public testimony on HJR 56.
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN made a motion to move HJR 56 from committee
with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note; she
asked for unanimous consent. There being no objection, HJR 56
moved from the House Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR MASEK adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 3:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|