Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/09/2003 01:24 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 9, 2003
1:24 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Hugh Fate, Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Cheryll Heinze
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 98
"An Act relating to sport fishing seasons and areas for persons
under 16 years of age."
- MOVED HB 98 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 204
"An Act relating to the regulation of natural gas pipelines
under the Pipeline Act."
- MOVED CSHB 204(O&G) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 226
"An Act relating to the sale, offer for sale, representation,
and labeling of food or other agricultural products as organic,
and to the state organic certification program; and providing
for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 226 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 163
"An Act relating to an annual wildlife conservation pass and the
fee for that pass; relating to nonresident and nonresident alien
big game tag fees; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 98
SHORT TITLE:SPORT FISHING SEASONS FOR YOUTH
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)SAMUELS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/14/03 0214 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/14/03 0214 (H) FSH, RES
03/28/03 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
03/28/03 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/28/03 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/28/03 0669 (H) FSH RPT 6DP
03/28/03 0669 (H) DP: OGG, HEINZE, WILSON,
SAMUELS,
03/28/03 0669 (H) GUTTENBERG, SEATON
03/28/03 0670 (H) FN1: ZERO(DFG)
03/28/03 0670 (H) FN2: ZERO(DPS)
04/09/03 0901 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WOLF
04/09/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 204
SHORT TITLE:REGULATION OF NATURAL GAS PIPELINES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CHENAULT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/19/03 0586 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/19/03 0586 (H) O&G, RES
03/27/03 (H) O&G AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 124
03/27/03 (H) Moved CSHB 204(O&G) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(O&G)
03/31/03 0711 (H) O&G RPT CS(O&G) NT 2DP 4NR
03/31/03 0711 (H) DP: ROKEBERG, KOHRING; NR:
HOLM, FATE,
03/31/03 0711 (H) MCGUIRE, CRAWFORD
03/31/03 0712 (H) FN1: INDETERMINATE(DNR)
04/09/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 226
SHORT TITLE:ORGANIC FOOD
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STOLTZE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/28/03 0677 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/28/03 0677 (H) RES, FIN
04/09/03 0901 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CHENAULT
04/09/03 0901 (H) COSPONSOR REMOVED: WILSON
04/09/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 163
SHORT TITLE:NONRES.GAME TAG FEES/WILDLIFE TOUR PASS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0433 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0433 (H) RES, FIN
03/05/03 0433 (H) FN1: (DFG)
03/05/03 0433 (H) FN2: (DFG)
03/05/03 0434 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/05/03 0434 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
03/14/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/14/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/17/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/17/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(RES)
04/04/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/04/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(RES)
04/09/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 98 as sponsor.
GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 98.
A. BEN SCHOFFMANN, Project Manager
Alaska Business Unit
Domestic Production
Marathon Oil Company;
Vice-President, Kenai Kachemak Pipeline, LLC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered presentation in support of HB 204;
answered questions.
MARK MYERS, Director
Division of Oil & Gas
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 204.
JIM STRANDBERG, Commissioner
Regulatory Commission of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 204, answered
questions with regard to RCA's role in consumer protection, the
existing Pipeline Act, and other issues.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 226.
BARBARA BITNEY, Staff
to Representative Bill Stoltze
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information in the committee
packet for HB 226; answered questions.
LARRY DeVILBISS, Proprietor/Manager
Wolverine Farm
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 226, provided
background and explained reasons such legislation is needed;
asked that beef not be excluded from the bill if possible.
RIVER BEAN, President
Alaska Organic Association
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged passage of HB 226; answered
questions.
DEAN BROWN, Acting Director
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question during hearing on
HB 226.
JIM POUND, Staff
to Representative Hugh Fate
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the committee aide, answered questions
on proposed Amendment 1 to HB 163, Version D, and suggested
alternative language.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-27, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR HUGH FATE called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:24 p.m. Representatives Fate, Gatto,
Morgan, and Wolf were present at the call to order.
Representatives Masek, Lynn, Guttenberg, Kerttula, and Heinze
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 98-SPORT FISHING SEASONS FOR YOUTH
CHAIR FATE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 98, "An Act relating to sport fishing seasons and
areas for persons under 16 years of age."
Number 0017
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
characterized HB 98 as a bill that would give authority to the
Board of Fisheries (BOF) to open a fishery for people less than
16 years of age only. This is also currently available for
people 60 years of age and older. The bill doesn't mandate that
this must be done, but provides an option that he surmised would
be used mostly in urban areas.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said Campbell Creek flows through his
neighborhood and there are a number of king [salmon] in the
creek, about 500-600 over the escapement [goal]. However, a
fishery hasn't been opened there because it would be open to too
many people. This [bill] would allow limitation of the number
of fishermen in a particular fishery and would allow for a lot
of family activities, such as a father-and-son fishing day, for
people in urban areas who probably don't get as much of an
opportunity to go fishing as people that live in other areas of
the state. Representative Samuels said another example is in
Homer: when fish are in the lagoon and snagging is legal, a
fishery could be opened up for [a variety] of hours for people
to take their children fishing. He added that the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the BOF support HB 98.
Number 0277
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if there was any separation between
residents and nonresidents.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS replied no. He said the reason 16 became
the cutoff age is because persons under 16 are not required to
have a fishing license. He offered his understanding that the
same [principle applies] to persons over 60 [in the form of
receiving] a card from the state, a lifetime license to fish.
Number 0407
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked whether the bill was discriminatory in
any way. He said he thought the bill was a good idea but didn't
want to see a bill pass through [committee] that might be
challenged.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS reiterated that [the practice] is done
for people over the age of 60. He said the [purpose] of the
bill is to get kids to go fishing rather than go to the mall,
for example. He offered his belief that the bill is not
discriminatory, and said he'd looked long and hard for
opposition to it.
Number 0544
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked if the bill would designate a fishery
in areas that would be specifically for children.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS replied yes. He offered Homer as an
example of an area, citing limitations that allow snagging of
fish during those times of the year. He said a three-hour
opening could be held for kids under 16 years of age that allows
them to fish without [competing] with adults around the stream
bank for a given time period.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, in response to remarks by
Representative Wolf, said the board may adopt regulations
establishing restrictive seasons and areas necessary for persons
60 years of age or older for participating in sport, personal
use, or subsistence fishing. He said subparagraph (B) would be
added to include persons under the age of 16.
Number 0713
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked how HB 98 would impact the Matanuska-
Susitna area, specifically, the Big and Little Susitna River
drainages.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS replied that HB 98 doesn't mandate that
any particular fishery be opened or closed. It would allow the
BOF to follow its normally procedures through ADF&G through the
advisory boards to open a particular fishery and provide the BOF
with the option to do that. Representative Samuels speculated
that HB 98 would be used more frequently in urban areas, but
said it doesn't stop persons from other communities that wanted
to have this for a given reason; one could go through the normal
process that the BOF goes through. He noted that he'd been
looking at permits from the last hunting season and had run
across a couple of hunts for kids only; this would be similar.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK observed that the fiscal note reflected a
zero impact and asked if [HB 98] would result in a larger
workload for BOF and ADF&G to implement.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said both BOF and ADF&G support HB 98 and
had provided the fiscal notes. He said he assumed it would not
[result in a larger workload].
Number 0846
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the bill would simply allow
persons 16 years of age and under to fish, and whether [the law]
currently allowed fishing during special seasons.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS explained that persons under 16 years of
age don't need a license to fish; that subparagraph (A) is
currently law; and that subparagraph (B) is being added and is
the only change being made. Currently, the BOF can have
[fisheries specifically] for persons 60 years of age or over,
and this would provide the option to have [fisheries
specifically for] persons 16 years of age and under.
Number 0922
CHAIR FATE asked where this law would apply. He offered his
understanding that most areas don't require a fishing license
and season [for persons 16 years of age and under], with the
probable exception of some urban areas.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS answered that the bill would allow the
[BOF] to [designate fisheries] anywhere [in the state]. He said
he didn't imagine the number of fishermen would be limited
unless there were a specific reason to do that.
Number 0994
GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, testified that the bill is
permissive. It just adds powers that the BOF could use in a
public process to consider proposals brought before them if the
department or public requested a certain method and means to
enhance the quality of a sport fishery for kids wherein the
pressure wouldn't be such that they were [subjected to] "combat
fishing," or to bring kids into an area for fishing in a more
controlled atmosphere and have special kids' fishing days. The
bill doesn't do anything other than give that power to the
board, he explained.
Number 1092
MR. WILLIAMS, in response to a comment by Representative Gatto,
said the BOF is pretty sensitive to how it manages fisheries and
accommodates different interests. This would be a proposal
brought before and established by the board, and there would be
plenty of public testimony on all sides prior to its happening.
Number 1141
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if there had been any similar
proposals or processes for people over the age of 60 and, if so,
whether any had been denied.
MR. WILLIAMS indicated he was unsure whether that had occurred.
He said the board has been approached to do the youth seasons
and has routinely had to tell people that it cannot entertain
those proposals because it doesn't have the authority. He noted
that the BOF had submitted a letter of support for the bill and
said he thought it is a tool the board would like to have
available to it and the public. He told Representative
Guttenberg he could get back to him with the information on
senior citizens.
Number 1207
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked why page 2, line 10, paragraph (7),
was included if the intention is to allow ADF&G to set up
fisheries for kids.
MR. WILLIAMS said the statute relates to the powers of the BOF
and what it may consider, and is current law; the only addition
is the underlying language on page 1, subparagraph (B).
CHAIR FATE asked whether anyone else wished to testify. He then
closed public testimony.
Number 1298
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to report HB 98 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes;
she asked for unanimous consent. There being no objection,
HB 98 was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
HB 204-REGULATION OF NATURAL GAS PIPELINES
Number 1350
CHAIR FATE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 204, "An Act relating to the regulation of
natural gas pipelines under the Pipeline Act." [The bill was
sponsored by Representative Chenault.]
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to adopt CSHB 204(O&G). There being
no objection, it was so ordered.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:40 p.m. to 1:41 p.m.
Number 1442
A. BEN SCHOFFMANN, Project Manager, Alaska Business Unit,
Domestic Production, Marathon Oil Company; Vice-President, Kenai
Kachemak Pipeline, LLC (KKPL), gave a presentation and provided
a 12-page handout. Referring to page 2 of the handout, he said
HB 204 would permit all natural gas pipelines within the state
to file a tariff with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA)
that offers both firm and interruptible service under the
Pipeline Act. He related his view that this is very similar to
what was done through the legislature in 2000, allowing a North
Slope pipeline to do that, and is also consistent with sound
policy in the Lower 48, where the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) regulates pipelines under the same premise
with both firm and interruptible transportation.
MR. SCHOFFMANN explained that firm service in a transportation
pipeline occurs when a shipper commits to paying a monthly
reservation charge and therefore is assured a set level of
capacity; that payment is due whether or not the service is
actually used. The pipeline, in turn, guarantees that the
capacity is available as and when needed. By contrast,
interruptible service is a pay-as-you-go concept that only
requires payment from shippers if they actually use the service.
The pipeline makes its best efforts to provide capacity, but in
the event that there is a restriction for any reason, those
shipments are subject to curtailment or interruption. This is
important for pipeline investors to be able to ensure that
they're going to have a level of business prior to making their
investments.
Number 1654
MR. SCHOFFMANN said that without the ability to offer firm and
interruptible service, a pipeline would have to estimate how
many customers it might have and wouldn't be assured of a stable
revenue stream. He suggested pipeline investors like it because
they can ensure that they will get business in advance and
ensure that the pipeline they're building is at least going to
be of the [appropriate] size for the set level of business; it
gives some stability and reduces risk. Shippers also should
like firm and interruptible service, he suggested, because it
allows them to align their shipping services with their boats,
gas supplies, and gas-sales contracts.
MR. SCHOFFMANN explained that gas-sales contracts are typically
made between producers and end users or customers; pipelines
then come into the middle of that relationship. He said it's
important to gas suppliers who sign contracts with customers on
pretty much the same basis - firm sales or interruptible sales -
to be able to have flexibility to make sure the pipeline can
transport the volumes that they've sold either under firm terms
or interruptible terms.
Number 1714
MR. SCHOFFMANN suggested a producer who has pretty firm supplies
may also wish to have firm transportation. Contrarily, there
are producers who have signed contracts that are interruptible.
It would make little sense for producers with interruptible
sales contracts to sign up for firm transportation; they'd
rather pay as they go. Similarly, he said, if they have yet to
fully explore or delineate their gas reserves, it would be a
little difficult to imagine why producers might want to sign up
too much firm capacity when they still have a lot of unknowns.
So this helps the producers to align transportation services
with both their set gas-sales contracts and their gas supplies.
MR. SCHOFFMANN said the fiscal note from the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Oil & Gas, indicates a zero
impact. However, a statement on [RCA's] fiscal note expresses a
concern about affiliate ownership as it may relate to the open
access provisions. He offered his belief that those comments
pretty much had to do with a general statement that contract
carriage or firm and interruptible transportation is generally a
good thing, but said [RCA] might envision some circumstances in
which producer-affiliate ownership could be a problem. Mr.
Schoffmann relayed his belief that this concern was largely
mitigated by the comments in the RCA fiscal note. In addition,
a producer-affiliate ownership is the primary model for Alaska,
he suggested, primarily because the producer affiliates are the
ones with the greatest incentive to make the investments. He
said currently those concerns that may have been raised haven't
developed.
Number 1855
MR. SCHOFFMANN mentioned conversations he'd had with several
smaller producers such as Aurora Gas LLC, Forest Oil
Corporation, and Evergreen [Resources]. He talked about a
letter of support from Aurora Gas LLC stating that it very much
favored the expansion of infrastructure to help them, as a
smaller producer, get access to the markets with their gas. He
said he was given permission by Forest Oil Corporation to say
that it had looked at the bill and had no problems with it.
Mr. Schoffmann reporting that his initial conversations with
Evergreen Resources seemed favorable but that he had yet to see
anything final from them.
MR. SCHOFFMANN offered his belief that this producer-affiliate
issue is really not one that comes into play with this bill.
Furthermore, he said, FERC has not discriminated against
producer-affiliate ownership elsewhere; for that matter, the
revisions made to the legislation in 2000 didn't place any such
restrictions on North Slope gas pipeline.
Number 1921
CHAIR FATE asked how firm transportation service meshed with
open seasons and capacity, and how interruptible transportation
service fits into this picture.
MR. SCHOFFMANN relayed his belief that RCA has the authority to
ensure that there is no discrimination with respect to the
pipeline capacity and how that is allocated. It is a fairly
common practice, he suggested, to hold an open season for a
contract for interruptible service. He said KKPL did that and
attempted to at least apprise RCA and let them have some input
into that process.
MR. SCHOFFMANN relayed his belief that RCA could mandate that as
a part of ensuring that all interested parties had a chance to
commit to these pipelines, and that they could do that under
their existing authority before they offered to grant a
certificate of convenience and necessity under AS 42.06. He
said it is always in RCA's purview to review how capacity is
being allocated, however, to make sure there is not
discrimination; furthermore, RCA has the ability to force
expansion if it finds that capacity isn't being fairly offered
to those who have need or who feel there is some discrimination.
Number 2152
MARK MYERS, Director, Division of Oil & Gas, Department of
Natural Resources, testified. He said in the case of RCA's
authority, it allows them to force mandatory expansion; however,
FERC does not have that same authority to force it, so the RCA
has greater authority in this manner than does FERC.
CHAIR FATE, noting that this deals with all pipelines, asked
what would be the case if this dealt with a major pipeline that
would have authority.
MR. MYERS said in the case of the interstate pipeline, there is
no requirement for mandatory expansion of the pipeline under
current law.
Number 2193
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA offered her understanding that capacity
would have to be granted.
MR. MYERS said it's more of an historical situation in which
there's a lot of expansion capacity available; with a lot of
competing pipelines in the Lower 48, there aren't too many
conditions of having only a single pipeline or very limited
infrastructure. He said he thinks the FERC standards are
different, and noted that from an Alaskan standpoint, the
ability to expand is liked. The Natural Gas Act doesn't allow
FERC to order expansion, so it is mandated in federal law. He
said he was unsure of the historical reasons for it, and that
the concept of the RCA's having the authority to mandate
expansion was liked. That's appropriate when there are a
limited amount of pipelines and a limited capacity on this
pipeline, he suggested.
Number 2249
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she thought that was what was
confusing her, because she kept [relating it to] the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), a common carrier. She offered
her understanding that [under this bill] the gas pipelines
aren't common carriers, but would enter into contracts under an
open season for either firm or interruptible service. She asked
if the way around that, if [a company] were to get locked out,
would be to go to RCA and [request] expansion.
MR. MYERS said that is exactly right: under common carriage,
the transported oil or gas is prorated for the amount of gas
available, whereas with contract carriage there is a commitment
to take or pay on that capacity. So it's a very different type
of system.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she is most concerned about what
would be done for access for the smaller, independent gas
companies, and that she wants to feel assured access isn't
somehow being closed off to them. She mentioned the debate
about what was done with TAPS and the state's not maintaining
any ownership. She asked for clarification.
Number 2329
MR. MYERS said the particular case is the KKPL pipeline, which
so far has received nomination for only 63 percent of the line's
capacity. Up front, it's not a very difficult issue if there is
extra capacity in the line and it's built to a larger size;
Mr. Myers said it wasn't his intention to [imply] there is a big
deal here with this particular pipeline.
MR. MYERS told members the fiscal note reflects that [DNR]
doesn't foresee a problem and that it is looking into the future
at cases wherein a pipeline may be built to a much smaller
capacity than is available in the gas market. Under that
scenario, whoever nominated gas first in that initial open
season would have that committed capacity; someone else would
have to either get the pipeline to expand, which could be done
voluntarily, or go to RCA on an interstate line and request that
RCA require expansion, and go through the hearing process.
MR. MYERS continued, saying the other way to obtain gas is to
get interruptible gas; if someone nominates and takes that firm
capacity and doesn't use it, someone [else] still can, through
the RCA, get use of that capacity until that other user has a
need for it; so there is interruptible capacity that is
available.
MR. MYERS said RCA definitely has greater authority on contract
carriage gas, and it's not nearly as problematic in the state as
the case where there is no mandatory expansion requirements. It
does put the burden on additional users, if they get in that
situation, to go to RCA and go through the hearing process to
get that expanded capacity, which could potentially delay some
projects. He offered his belief that, overall, there is a
mechanism for people to get their gas in the line over the long
term, through the RCA, if they trust in the agency's authority
and discretion to use that authority.
Number 2463
JIM STRANDBERG, Commissioner, Regulatory Commission of Alaska,
concurred with Mr. Myers. He stressed that the added ability
for contract carriage is going to be a benefit. He offered his
belief that it is going to help in attracting investment, and
that if contract carriage was in fact allowed in a pipeline,
were some person or company to come along later and want to
convey gas over that pipeline, [RCA] would still be able to
evoke common-carrier statutory jurisdiction, and to really
facilitate that producer in getting access to the pipeline. He
said the two ways available to do it are either to require an
increase in the pipeline capacity or to take a look at the way
the firm capacity is being used. He said if someone isn't using
that capacity, it is believed that room could be made for the
new producer. Mr. Strandberg said both of these types of
carriage very well could occur.
Number 2554
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that she hadn't received a
the RCA's fiscal note. She asked if it had been submitted.
MR. STRANDBERG said yes, it was a zero fiscal note. In further
response, he read the fiscal note analysis, which stated
[original punctuation provided]:
While not explicitly stated, the services allowed by
this bill are typically regarded as contract carriage.
The 2000 Legislature allowed it for transportation of
natural gas from the North Slope, partially to bring
State statutes into accord with FERC rules for
interstate gas transport.
This language expands the statutory recognition of
contract carriage to all parts of the State. Because
common carrier language is retained in AS 42.06, RCA
retains the ability to provide any and all shippers
access to transport service on intrastate pipelines
through its regulatory processes.
There are no fiscal impacts on RCA from this bill,
however it is expected that where producers elect to
own and operate a pipeline, which is allowed under
state statute, contract carriage with service under
these statutory terms will be proposed to RCA in
pipeline tariff filings.
RCA will consider this under the statutory public
interest standard. RCA's budget is funded through the
Regulatory Cost Charge (RCC) mechanism and direct
charge mechanisms. No general funds are allocated for
support of the agency.
The RCC is recalculated each year and allows the
agency to recover its operating costs through an
assessment on the revenues of the utilities and
pipeline carriers it regulates. The RCC is capped at
0.8 % of regulated utilities annual gross revenues.
Number 2554
CHAIR FATE asked Mr. Strandberg to fax RCA's fiscal note to the
committee for review.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:05 p.m. to 2:06 p.m.
CHAIR FATE offered his belief that the committee had done a good
job in trying to determine the coordination of RCA and the
Division of Oil & Gas. He said there seemed to be no objections
from the departments and that he hoped everybody understood the
testimony relating to open seasons and capacity. He noted his
intention to move the bill forward.
CHAIR FATE asked whether anyone else wished to testify. He then
closed public testimony.
Number 2757
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA offered her understanding that there
will still be common-carrier rules; that [the bill] is just
allowing these contracts; and that, ultimately, RCA will have to
make a ruling if there are objections or concerns. She said
with that, she does not object.
CHAIR FATE remarked that he hadn't realized [RCA] has the power
to force expansion and that it would certainly help exploration.
Number 2788
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to report CSHB 204(O&G) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes; she asked for unanimous consent. There being no
objection, CSHB 204(O&G) was reported from the House Resources
Standing Committee.
HB 226-ORGANIC FOOD
CHAIR FATE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 226, "An Act relating to the sale, offer for
sale, representation, and labeling of food or other agricultural
products as organic, and to the state organic certification
program; and providing for an effective date."
Number 2872
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that HB 226 will help many farmers in his district,
particularly those in the "niche" portion of the agricultural
industry, by helping them participate in compliance with federal
requirements under a state organic program. He noted that this
bill has features of legislation sponsored by Representative
Harris the previous year; Representative Harris had asked him to
help take the lead on this along with Representative Gatto, a
cosponsor, who is from Palmer. He deferred to Ms. Bitney for
further explanation.
Number 2958
BARBARA BITNEY, Staff to Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska
State Legislature, addressed information in the committee packet
and offered details. Referring to a sectional analysis [dated
April 7, 2003, from Legislative Legal and Research Services],
she said the bill is to bring Alaska in line with the National
Organic Program (NOP) that was passed in [2001] and that allowed
14 months for states to come in line; last year Representative
Harris introduced HB 432 to do that, but it didn't pass. Right
now, Alaskan producers of organic products must go out of state
for certification; the packet contains letters relating to this
and the associated cost burden.
TAPE 03-27, SIDE B
Number 2958
MS. BITNEY, to show how many communities are affected,
highlighted three farmers' markets in Anchorage and one each in
Eagle River, Fairbanks, Homer, Soldotna, and Wasilla; in
addition, Delta and Talkeetna plan to start one. Those are the
smaller producers, and there are larger agricultural producers
as well such as Wolverine [Farm], which produces carrots. They
face a big issue regarding costs associated with keeping the
"organic" label, she told members. Offering a label for
committee members to view, she indicated these labels cannot be
used without certification.
Number 2944
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked why meat, fish, and poultry aren't
included in the bill.
MS. BITNEY replied:
Actually, I have a clarification in there, and ...
they are actually applied in two different sections of
the statute. And so we're dealing with them
separately, and part of the reason for that is because
... we have a distinct need right now to make sure we
get the agriculture through. And they've been waiting
for over a year and a half to do that.
Number 2905
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG referred to page 1 [Section 2, lines
12-13], which says in part, "The department may establish a
state organic certification program". He asked whether it
should be "shall" rather than "may".
MS. BITNEY answered, "We definitely want them to do that, so I
would have to check with the Department of Law to clarify that."
Number 2875
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG referred to Section 1 and noted that
it says [on line 5, "AS 03.58.010 is repealed and reenacted to
read:"]. He asked what the change was.
MS. BITNEY answered that the [statutory] organic standards in
place aren't in line with the current federal organic program.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG surmised, then, that basically the
state standards had been thrown out and the federal standards
adopted.
MS. BITNEY concurred.
Number 2850
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE observed that [the sponsor statement] says
qualified inspectors would complete the inspection and [the
final certification process would be performed by a designated
state official]. She asked whether the inspectors are Alaskans
or would be brought in from the federal government.
MS. BITNEY answered that a lot of the inspectors are federally
qualified because there is a significant cost for the training.
She added, "People haven't applied for the training yet because
we don't even have the certification program here in Alaska yet.
So I believe that if we did do this, we would have the
certification here and then the inspectors would follow."
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked whether funds are available
somewhere to start the certification process.
MS. BITNEY replied:
We have a fiscal note that covers basically the
certification process. And the inspection process is
actually what requires the most time. And right now
the inspectors come up, do a very thorough inspection.
And we would be able to have the certification
process, sign off on it - they would look through all
the required documentation, make sure everything was
correct, and could do an onsite inspection follow-up
if they wanted.
Number 2770
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE remarked that he is very sensitive to
fiscal matters and is working with Representative Harris, a
cosponsor, so that the House Finance Committee can scrutinize
this to make sure it just meets necessary costs. Representative
Stoltze said he'd keep a watchful eye as well.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE clarified that she wanted to ensure that
the money is there to implement this.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE replied that if these [costs] are all
justified, he will fight tooth and nail for this important
industry in his district and others. It isn't a large industry
at this point, he noted, but certainly has potential. He
expressed the desire to nurture it.
Number 2726
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG referred to Section 4, page 2,
line 10, which relates to establishing a fine. He asked whether
this is new or is common practice.
MS. BITNEY answered that the U.S. Code sets a $10,000 limit for
a fine. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) - under [the
Division of Agriculture] - would have to determined with the
Department of Law what they would set for a fine. She surmised
that it would be in line with other states, and noted that the
[federal] organic program has draft language that all states
have looked at for adoption. "I believe ours was in line with
that," she added.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether this is a new policy for
Alaska with regard to fines.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE offered to find out.
Number 2633
LARRY DeVILBISS, Proprietor/Manager, Wolverine Farm, began by
explaining that Wolverine Farm has existed in the Matanuska
Valley since 1956. He told members:
When we came up to begin managing the farm in 1980, we
made a number of decisions that sort of changed the
direction of where we went. We had traditionally been
a potato and dairy farm, and we decided to go into
organic production as much as possible, and to focus
on carrots and beef. And over that 22 or 23 years, we
have phased completely out of the nonorganic
production ... of carrots and are just producing
organic carrots now - just to tell you that that's an
indicator of where the market has gone up here; it has
definitely grown enough to accommodate at least this
farm ... in one product.
And about five or six years ago, I was a founding
member of the Alaska Organic Association, because up
to that point there had been no way to certify
organically up here in the state. And after quite a
bit of research we came up with a model that basically
was modeled after the California organic growers'
association and Oregon Tilth.
And through these years, with a board ... [composed]
of both growers and retailers and a couple of
housewives, we flew in inspectors that were members of
the international organic inspectors association and
adopted standards and have had a program that we think
had a lot of credibility and ... worked pretty well.
But when the national standard kicked in last year,
... it knocked out the possibility of growers' being
involved at all in the actual certification. And so
we've kind of been floundering since then. Since that
time, I've actually stepped out of the carrot side of
the production here at Wolverine Farm, and ... there's
three other relatives that are picking that up. And
this year they've had to go out to Washington [State]
to certify because nothing was put in place last year
... to enable us to certify.
Number 2455
MR. DeVILBISS continued:
The way we [envision] this working is that we'll
continue flying in independent inspectors to do ...
the inspecting, at our expense, until such time as ...
there are qualified inspectors up here that could do
it. ... But even then, the growers would expect to
bear that expense. The only thing we haven't been
able to do ... and need from the state is some kind of
a certification of that process so that we can use the
federal seal. And in order for the state to do that,
it was necessary for this law that is coming before
you to repeal the old state standard and adopt the
national organic standard, and make room for the state
to accommodate this process.
I ... was unaware up to this point [that] there was a
fiscal note attached to it at all. But we're not
looking for a handout. We're just looking for a way
to do business here ... that doesn't require us to put
another state sticker on our bags. That really
doesn't seem appropriate. It's not something we want
to do. We've developed quite a bit of loyalty for
Alaskan products here.
MR. DeVILBISS mentioned moving the bill ahead and said he
believes [organic food] is a niche that is growing. Referring
to a recent audit on the Division of Agriculture, he said one
recommendation was that the state do what it can to help niches
like this in the agricultural industry to get started. This
bill certainly would help do that, he concluded.
Number 2356
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Mr. DeVilbiss what gross weight of
carrots Wolverine Farm can produce annually.
MR. DeVILBISS answered that they've been producing 500 to 600
tons a year. Annual gross revenues have been about $350,000 to
$400,000. On the organic side, he noted, most of that goes
toward wages because it is very labor-intensive.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether other kinds of organic
produce are grown in the Matanuska Valley.
MR. DeVILBISS affirmed that. He said the association has
producers that grow a large variety of vegetables, more for
farmers' market, but one commercial potato producer in Delta
produces just potatoes, to his belief.
Number 2240
MR. DeVILBISS returned attention to the bill and said:
We eventually plan to bring our livestock into the
program. In fact, we started to last year, but we ran
into a problem: we've been unable to come up with
organic sources for enough nitrogen to grow grass
here. But as soon as possible we want to be able to
sell organic beef as well. And so ... I would like to
see that exclusion taken out of there, unless there's
some reason why it couldn't be.
CHAIR FATE said he'd have to take a look at that. He added:
I do know that in previous efforts in red meat
programs there's always been some problem in
certification. And we've had a difficult time
getting, as you are, ... federal inspectors to come
up. And it has to be federally inspected meat. And
that's one of the problems in several enterprises that
have really tried ... and had actually a pretty good
local market. But I know the University of Alaska had
a red meat program, and that was one of the problems,
... trying to get certification of that meat after, of
course, the meat was processed.
MR. DeVILBISS added that the national standard addresses this
fully, so there's no complication as far as the standard on the
national level is concerned.
Number 2150
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE lauded Mr. DeVilbiss as a "shining star"
in the agricultural field for dedication and the products he
produces. She then asked how fertilizer is applied for organic
foods.
MR. DeVILBISS replied:
Well, if you read the national standard, which is
probably two or three inches thick, you'd have a
better idea. But basically it has to be done without
any synthetic compounds, which means you can't use
fertilizer that's been chemically produced. There's
natural rock for phosphate; we use fish byproduct for
the phosphorus; the nitrogen is harder to come by, but
that's where we use composting and cow manure and ...
a whole bunch of other stuff. And it's all spelled
out and it's all got to be verified ... as the process
goes along so it's not ... infringed on.
And I might say that one reason we, as a farm, decided
to go organic is 'cause we're convinced that our
father died prematurely of cancer because of
agricultural chemicals. ... We don't criticize farmers
... that don't do it that way, but we had good
motivation as a family to do something different.
CHAIR FATE informed members that Dean Brown and Rob Wells of the
Division of Agriculture were available to answer questions.
Number 2030
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG remarked that he likes the option of
having an organic foods section at the store. He asked
Mr. DeVilbiss, on a larger scale, whether there is a separate
market that is large enough for this.
MR. DeVILBISS answered:
We wouldn't be moving that direction if there weren't.
... The production figures I gave Representative Gatto
were for organic production only. ... It's a niche
that ... has grown significantly in the past 20 years
and ... I expect will continue to grow.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether most of the market is in
supermarkets or farmers' markets.
MR. DeVILBISS replied that it's in both places. He added, "Our
production has gone almost entirely into the supermarket chains.
In fact, through last year, ... we were even in Juneau for a
while."
Number 1935
RIVER BEAN, President, Alaska Organic Association, began by
thanking Representative Stoltz for bringing the bill forward on
behalf of his association. He urged passage so Alaska has
something in place to help with the certification process.
Noting that a number of farmers must go to Washington State this
year in order to be certified at great expense, he contrasted
that with the cost for in-state certification, saying it would
simply be returning the cost of the program to the state. He
told members:
We're not looking for a handout; we're looking to
cover costs. But at this point the Alaska Organic
Association can no longer certify. So we need a
certifying body in the State of Alaska in order to put
"Alaskan certified organic" on our produce or labels
or bags, rather than "Washington State for Alaskan
grown produce."
MR. BEAN said this also would support sustainable agriculture in
the valley. Offering his belief that a number of farmers who
aren't certified would become certified if the State of Alaska
were accredited to do so, he concluded, "I think the publicity
is much greater through a state program and ... would offer that
opportunity to a lot more growers, maybe on a [sliding-fee
scale] than what we could do with the Alaska Organic
Association."
Number 1802
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked whether the certification would come
under the Division of Agriculture, Department of Natural
Resources (DNR).
MR. BEAN replied that he believed so.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked Dean Brown whether this indicates
the Division of Agriculture will stay put.
Number 1766
DEAN BROWN, Acting Director, Division of Agriculture, Department
of Natural Resources, answered that the administration has been
looking at the recommendations from the audit, and that the
Board of Agriculture and Conservation had made recommendations
for candidates for the director [position]. She offered her
understanding that no final decisions have been made yet, but
said she'd been the acting director since December 15. Noting
that the growing season is approaching and that the Agricultural
Revolving Loan Fund is active in supporting farmers, Ms. Brown
added that agriculture is alive and well and that producers have
viable products they're bringing to market this year.
Number 1686
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked Mr. Bean who the members of
[Alaska Organic Association] are across the state.
MR. BEAN answered that members range from Fairbanks to Homer,
although not in the outlying Bush areas. "It's possible they
don't know about it," he added. "We've done all of our own
advertising, and it's been limited to ... just basically the
road system." He acknowledged that the [Anchorage Daily News]
goes out to the Bush, but said there are no members there
currently.
MR. BEAN noted that his personal business, Arctic Organics, was
started 18 years ago and always has been organic. However, this
is the first year that the produce no longer can be called
"organic," and there is a possible federal fine of up to $10,000
if his business calls it that. He added, "We cannot afford to
go to Washington State and have them do our inspection for us.
So we are no longer able to call our produce 'organic,' and
that's a real shame."
Number 1577
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG requested the names of the Alaska
Organic Association's members from Fairbanks, his own district.
MR. BEAN replied that he didn't have a list with him, but
mentioned a certified grower in the Fairbanks area and that a
number of people have called wanting Mr. Bean to do a radio
program up there, although they hadn't followed through.
Number 1544
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked about any cooperatives currently in
place. She recalled that when she was living on the Yukon
River, the Tanana Chiefs Conference had a program under which
potatoes, turnips, carrots, and so forth were grown in the
village. She mentioned a soil and water conservation program
and said she didn't know whether it was affiliated with
[Mr. Bean's organization] in any way.
MR. BEAN said no and explained:
We're basically a stand-alone program and operation.
We started the Alaska Organic Association several
years ago, and Larry DeVilbiss, as he stated, was one
of the founding members, and there were a number of
other people. And we spent probably a year and a half
researching our standards, and we did this all on our
own; ... there were no other groups or entities
involved. And so it is just ... basically the board
members of the Alaska Organic Association that came up
with the standards that we have yet today, but they're
no longer effective.
Number 1442
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether genetically modified foods
that were grown organically would qualify.
MR. BEAN answered that the National Organic Program doesn't
allow that. It specifies what the organic standards are, and
genetically modified foods aren't part of that.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether there is a limit on the
annual dollar volume. In other words, could a person who sells
$500 in products a year be able to sell something organic
without certification?
MR. BEAN answered yes. He elaborated:
Currently, the way that the National Organic Program
reads is that anyone that grosses less than $5,000 is
allowed to sell their produce as organic as long as
... they're following the standards that the NOP, the
National Organic Program, has set forth. But ... if
they're not making very much money ... they are not
required to pay the money to become certified. They
do have to promise to grow to those standards ... and
then they can use the word "organic," but they do not
need to be certified.
Number 1332
CHAIR FATE noted that the bill strikes the current $1,000 cap
[for a civil fine] and also includes attorney fees. He asked
whether the intent is that there will still be a $1,000 limit.
MS. BITNEY replied that there is a limit in the federal law of
$10,000. As the bill reads, it is left up to the department.
She suggested that might be something for the committee to
explore.
Number 1242
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to the addition of attorney
fees to the costs that can be recovered [page 2, line 17]. She
said she didn't think any administrative code in Alaska had that
and asked whether it's something new.
MS. BITNEY said she'd have to get back to Representative
Kerttula on that.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE added that he didn't feel strongly about
it and indicated he didn't have the legal background
Representative Kerttula has.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA clarified that she wasn't sure it
wouldn't be a good idea, but just hadn't seen it before.
Number 1180
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to report HB 226 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes; she asked for unanimous consent. There being no
objection, HB 226 was reported from the House Resources Standing
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE informed members that he would follow up
on the very good questions they'd asked.
HB 163-NONRES. GAME TAG FEES/WILDLIFE TOUR PASS
Number 1118
CHAIR FATE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 163, "An Act relating to an annual wildlife
conservation pass and the fee for that pass; relating to
nonresident and nonresident alien big game tag fees; and
providing for an effective date." [The bill was sponsored by
the House Rules Standing Committee by request of the governor.
Before the committee, adopted as a work draft on 4/4/03, was
Version D, labeled 23-GH1098\D, Utermohle, 3/18/03.]
CHAIR FATE indicated the public hearing had been closed
previously and reminded members that several amendments had been
incorporated into Version D. He asked whether the committee had
any questions before addressing further amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she had concerns, not questions.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:48 p.m. to 2:50 p.m.
Number 0896
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, following line 14
Insert:
(9) a wildlife conservation pass will provide new
revenue that may be used to support fish and wildlife
management, including protection, and to support and
promote the tourism industry for which wildlife
resources attract visitors to the state;
Number 0890
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected to ask for an explanation.
CHAIR FATE explained that it sets forth the intent, since there
had been questions about what these funds would be used for.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA removed her objection.
Number 0832
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether adding [Amendment 1] to
the findings section directs those funds or whether it is just
part of the opening statement about the legislation.
CHAIR FATE said that, to him, this is more than just intent
language, although it is clarification of what the use will be.
Emphasizing that it's in the body of law and uses the word
"will", he then noted that it says "will provide new [revenue]
that may be used to support" and so forth.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said his concern is whether its being
under Section 1, "Findings", makes a difference.
CHAIR FATE clarified that these amendments had come from the
administration.
Number 0697
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said she believes it's appropriate and in
line with the other findings, paragraphs (1) through (8).
CHAIR FATE concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA observed that Amendment 1 says the pass
[may be used to] support and promote the tourism industry. She
didn't recall much testimony on how it would do that. She asked
what the plan is to do with the funds for the tourism industry,
and whether the funds will go into marketing, for instance.
Number 0622
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Hugh Fate, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking as the committee aide, responded:
This was language that we had discussed with the
administration regarding expanding out the possibility
of -- and, again, it's primarily a finding, but it's
intent language so that when ... future legislators
... are looking at how funds are distributed, ... they
have [an] option of ... moving that money into the
tourism industry as far as marketing or whatever area
they see fit.
Number 0565
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether someone from Legislative
Legal and Research Services could give him an answer as to how
it is different to put this language in the findings section,
rather than relating it to a statute with a reference line.
MR. POUND offered his opinion instead, saying a paragraph that
he believed was on page 6, line 30, to page 7, line 2, in the
previous bill version was in a completely different part of the
legislation. He said [Amendment 1] was put together to bring
that language back into the bill, "in part, especially the
wildlife management portions of it." He also indicated that the
omission had been discovered this very day, and that there may
be a modification needed to Amendment 1 because it is somewhat
duplicative.
CHAIR FATE announced his preference of making recommendations to
the House Finance Committee and moving the bill forward.
Number 0310
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK reiterated that she believes Amendment 1 is
in the appropriate place and adds language brought up in
committee discussions from the tourism industry. "We're trying
to facilitate all users, every one that has a stakeholder in
this bill here," she added. "And I think we're compromising
quite a bit, and I think this amendment ... should pass." She
asked that Representative Guttenberg remove his objection and
then have the House Finance Committee take a closer look at
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said he would remove his objection.
Number 0193
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK renewed her motion to adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE referred to the wording "promote the
tourism industry for which wildlife resources attract visitors
to the state". She said it seems to be a very narrow part of
tourism. If a boat owner doesn't run a wildlife tour, for
example, the funds cannot come back to that person.
CHAIR FATE replied:
Part of what you say is true, but there's very little
... in the ... tourism industry that doesn't deal with
the viewing of wildlife, whether it's on a tour ship
or whether it's on a rubber-tire crate to ... the
Interior of Alaska or whatever. ... So it's not quite
as narrow ... as a person might be made to believe
here in the wording ....
Number 0082
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO told members he isn't entirely pleased with
the bill, but now that it's before the committee, he has some
trouble with the wording of Amendment 1. He questioned whether
it will always be true that a wildlife conservation pass will
provide new revenue. He suggested it makes more sense to say
"funds generated from a wildlife conservation pass may be used
to support", for instance.
TAPE 03-28, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR FATE said this isn't talking about the bottom line or a
balance sheet, but about revenue derived from one pass. If more
than one pass is sold, there will be a multiple of the cost of
the pass as revenue. He suggested it is a matter of semantics.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO replied that it's tough for him to make a
declaration that something will happen unless he can offer
supporting evidence. He indicated he wouldn't pursue it unless
some other members agreed, but said he'd feel more comfortable
with "funds generated from", rather than the existing language.
Number 0108
MR. POUND proposed a possible way to address Representative
Gatto's concern and duplicative wording. Referring to
[subsection (e)] page 6, line 30 - which he said is relatively
unimportant - and on to page 7, line 7, he suggested that
[subsection (e) should read in part, "The annual balance in the
account may be appropriated by the legislature for the purpose
of fish and game management, viewing, and education programs,"
with the following inserted: "including protection and to
support and promote the tourism industry for which wildlife
resources attract visitors [to] the state". Deleted would be
the wording "for other public purposes" [page 7, line 2].
MR. POUND then suggested that on page 7, line 7 [it should say]:
"The annual balance in the account may be appropriated by the
legislature for the purpose of fish and game management,
viewing, and education programs, including protection and to
support and promote the tourism industry for which wildlife
resources attract visitors [to] the state." Deleted would be
"for other public purposes".
MR. POUND suggested the foregoing would take care of
Representative Gatto's concern about wording saying this will
generate funds, because it refers it back to fees.
CHAIR FATE said it sounds like a pretty good compromise. He
suggested Amendment 1 should be withdrawn and a new Amendment 1
should be moved.
Number 0250
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK withdrew Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to adopt new [Conceptual] Amendment 1
[as set forth by Mr. Pound previously].
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE expressed confusion, saying she hadn't
been finished with her discussion.
Number 0317
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected for purposes of discussion.
She told members:
Here's where I think we're going awry with this. I
think Representative Guttenberg's point about findings
versus intent's pretty well taken. This really isn't
in "finding". It may be intent. But now what we're
doing is actually getting ... into where we think the
money should go, and that's probably the statute
itself. So I don't really care, because I have
problems with the whole bill. But I do think you're
starting to really get the record pretty confused
about, "This just isn't a finding." ... There hasn't
been evidence on it. It's not in the right place in
the bill. So, I don't know what you want to do about
it, but there's my objection.
Number 0410
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK withdrew new Conceptual Amendment 1.
[HB 163 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0528
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:06 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|