Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/26/2012 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Canada's Federal Northern Pipeline Agency | |
| HB191 | |
| HJR40 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HJR 40 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 191 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 26, 2012
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): CANADA'S FEDERAL NORTHERN PIPELINE AGENCY
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 191
"An Act establishing a state department of agriculture and food
and relating to its powers and duties; relating to the powers
and duties of the Department of Environmental Conservation and
the Department of Natural Resources; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 40
Commending the governor and the administration for aggressively
working to enforce the rights of the state in R.S. 2477 rights-
of-way; urging the governor and the attorney general to develop
a working alliance with other western states to protect and
enforce appropriation request to fund an aggressive effort by
the state to resolve issues relating to R.S. 2477 rights-of-way,
including possible litigation, and to continue to work to
preserve the rights of the state in regard to R.S. 2477 rights-
of-way.
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 191
SHORT TITLE: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) THOMPSON BY REQUEST
03/11/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/11/11 (H) EDT, RES, FIN
03/15/11 (H) EDT AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
03/15/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/11 (H) MINUTE(EDT)
04/07/11 (H) EDT RPT 3DP 1DNP 2NR
04/07/11 (H) DP: THOMPSON, TUCK, FOSTER
04/07/11 (H) DNP: GARDNER
04/07/11 (H) NR: MUNOZ, OLSON
04/07/11 (H) EDT AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/07/11 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/07/11 (H) MINUTE(EDT)
03/26/12 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HJR 40
SHORT TITLE: RS 2477 RIGHTS-OF-WAY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER
02/22/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/12 (H) RES, JUD
03/26/12 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRYSTIA CHUDCZAK, Assistant Commissioner
Northern Pipeline Agency
Government of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation on the
Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline project in Canada.
FRANK RICHARDS, Deputy Federal Coordinator
Office of the Federal Coordinator
Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question during the presentation
by the Northern Pipeline Agency.
LYNETTE BERGH, Staff
Representative Steve Thompson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 191 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Thompson.
JANE PIERSON, Staff
Representative Steve Thompson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
191.
JOHN POIRRIER
Alaska State Grange
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 191.
MARIE RICE, Rancher
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 191.
BRYCE WRIGLEY, President
Alaska Farm Bureau
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 191.
BRUCE WILLARD
Willard Farms
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 191.
BILL BURTON
Kodiak Game Ranch;
President, Kodiak Farm Bureau
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 191.
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 191.
KRISTIN RYAN, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 191.
REX WRIGLEY
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 191.
RUBY HOLLEMBAEK, Owner & Operator
Alaska Interior Game Ranch;
President, Alaska Diversified Livestock Association
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 191.
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the sponsor, introduced HJR 40.
KENT SULLIVAN, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Section (Juneau)
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HJR 40, provided
information regarding R.S. 2477 rights-of-way.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:21 PM
CO-CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Representatives Seaton,
P. Wilson, Herron, Foster, Gardner, and Feige were present at
the call to order. Representatives Munoz, Kawasaki, and Dick
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION(S): Canada's Federal Northern Pipeline Agency
PRESENTATION(S): Canada's Federal Northern Pipeline Agency
1:07:44 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would
be a presentation by Canada's Northern Pipeline Agency on the
Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline project in Canada.
1:09:48 PM
CHRYSTIA CHUDCZAK, Assistant Commissioner, Northern Pipeline
Agency, Government of Canada, said her presentation would touch
upon three topics: the project and its challenges; Canada is
ready, engaged, and leading; and next steps. She stated that
the project will only proceed if it is commercially viable, the
markets want it, and the producers successfully secure
customers. Initiated in 1977, the project has faced the
challenges of volatile global energy outlook and markets,
complex social expectations that shape northern resource
development, and ongoing pressures on public services to do more
with less. The purpose of the project has remained to ship
natural gas from the North Slope to the Lower 48 by the original
route and with the original operational infrastructure.
However, the context has changed along with advances in pipeline
technology which allow more gas to be pushed more safely through
smaller pipes at higher pressures. In addition, there are new
environmental laws, regulations, and standards in Canada and
elsewhere.
1:12:14 PM
MS. CHUDCZAK noted that society's values have shifted toward
sustainability, ecological support, and the introduction and use
of Aboriginal knowledge. She said new global market pressures
have been brought by the abundance of shale oil, Asian markets,
and liquefied natural gas (LNG). She indicated that if the
commercial decision is made, three groups of assets position
Canada to move forward expeditiously. The first group of
existing instruments includes the unique bilateral international
treaty with the U.S. establishing the project, Canada's
enactment of the Northern Pipeline Act which coordinates the
planning and construction of the project, and Canada's granting
to TransCanada certificates of public convenience for the entire
project. The second group of assets relates to Canada being an
experienced regulator having completed stage 1 of the project in
1982. Stage 1 involved a pipeline from Alberta to Saskatchewan
and into British Columbia which met 750 highly prescriptive
terms and conditions. The third group of assets includes the
regulatory framework, in that Canada has a single-window model
within the Northern Pipeline Agency which consolidates all
federal Canadian authorities relevant to the project for making
decisions, including the responsibility to consult with First
Nations.
1:14:29 PM
MS. CHUDCZAK pointed out that although Canada is ready on the
regulatory side, there is the challenge of how to address the
environmental and socioeconomic information gaps that exist
because the project was put on hold 30 years ago. Canada has
decided to use the Northern Pipeline Act which provides for the
creation of advisory councils to leverage TransCanada's updated
environmental and socioeconomic information in a public review.
Throughout the council process over the course of a year, the
public will be able to express its views to help in defining,
identifying, and filling those information gaps. This process
will give Aboriginal people and others the chance to voice their
ideas and concerns that will find a way into the regulatory
decision making. A report will be sent to the Minister of
Natural Resources on behalf of the government and the report
will be factored into stage 2 of the regulatory process that
will review and approve the conditions associated with
TransCanada's plans and programs.
1:15:50 PM
MS. CHUDCZAK said getting through the regulatory process
expeditiously means there must be strong working relationships
with industry, the public, and government partners such as First
Nations' governments, Yukon and British Columbia governments,
and the U.S. and Alaska governments. She stressed that the
Government of Canada has a special fiduciary relationship with
First Nations and Aboriginal people, along with a moral and
legal obligation to consult them on decisions affecting their
interests and rights. On this project, the Northern Pipeline
Agency is responsible for consultations on behalf of the
Canadian government. As there are over 30 First Nations living
along the pipeline corridor, some with settled land claims and
some not, the law requires the agency to take Aboriginal
interests into account when decisions are made about the
project. The agency is also obliged to attempt to secure
economic benefits and social opportunities for First Nations,
which may involve providing capacity funding. Importantly,
First Nations in Canada have helped to shape the regulatory
process for natural resources projects, including integrating
traditional knowledge in regulatory decision-making. This is an
important way for First Nations to relay their first-hand
experience and knowledge of the land to those making decisions
on programs and plans, and to mitigate concerns. The second
special relationship that the Government of Canada has is with
the U.S. and Alaska. The treaty established for the project is
seen as a way to ensure that jobs and growth are created equally
on both sides of the border. Canada and the U.S. have markets
that are closely linked, a common and close energy relationship,
and shared values with respect to open markets, a commitment to
strengthening environmental protection, and growth through job
creation.
1:18:41 PM
MS. CHUDCZAK continued, saying from Canada's perspective, it is
leading in streamlining pipeline regulations, invoking modern
business practices, and securing tangible outcomes, all of which
create a model for future resource projects in Canada. The
agency is modernizing with technology, and will bring tools and
talent together to expedite the project in 2012. These
practices will lead to the following six outcomes:
· Meet or exceed modern environmental and socioeconomic
standards by using a collaborative, cohesive, and
considered regulatory approach
· Respect for existing federal approvals
· Ensure safe pipeline design and construction through the
regulatory process
· Strive for maximum socioeconomic benefit through strong and
productive business relationships at the local, regional,
and national government levels, and with First Nations.
· Meet Canada's duty to consult Aboriginal people through
cooperation and collaboration
· Engage the public and industry through timely and
predictable processes
1:20:02 PM
MS. CHUDCZAK acknowledged there is no way to predict the
commercial direction of the project; however, Canada is
preparing for the future in its regulatory process and
activities, in its ongoing consultations with First Nations, in
the modernization of its business, and in collaboration with
other governments. This will ensure long-term growth and job
creation, and will unleash North America's natural resource
advantage.
1:20:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to how the aforementioned
bilateral treaty agreement between the U.S and Canada would
expedite the project.
MS. CHUDCZAK explained the treaty contains two practical
commitments. One commitment requires a senior official from
each jurisdiction oversee the activities of the project. In
Canada, that official is the commissioner of the Northern
Pipeline Agency. The second major commitment is to consult,
cooperate, and collaborate on regulatory matters; for example,
the Northern Pipeline Agency has ongoing discussions and
relationships with the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC).
1:22:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked how the Keystone XL Pipeline issue
would generally impact this pipeline and others. In response to
Ms. Chudczak's request for clarification, he further asked if
there would be an impact on export and development at the
federal level.
MS. CHUDCZAK said that from her prospective and
responsibilities, there has been no impact.
1:23:09 PM
FRANK RICHARDS, Deputy Federal Coordinator, Office of the
Federal Coordinator, Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects,
said the distinct difference between the two projects is that
the Keystone XL pipeline is an oil pipeline, and the
environmental impact statement for that project is administered
by the U.S. Department of State. Regulation of the proposed
Alaska natural gas pipeline in the U.S. falls under the Alaska
Natural Gas Pipeline Act, and the environmental impact statement
is administered by FERC. Although these are two different
processes, both follow National Environmental Policy Act
guidance.
1:23:58 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON understood that under the Northern Pipeline Act,
rolled-in rates or tolls are presumed or required. He asked how
rolled-in rates or tolls on expansions are regulated in Canada.
MS. CHUDCZAK said she was unsure and would provide an answer at
a later time.
1:25:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON recalled that the pipeline was
initially considered in the U.S. 30 years ago, but nothing was
done. She asked what has suddenly inspired Canada's interest,
especially in light of the new opportunities for gas production
in the Lower 48.
MS. CHUDCZAK replied that interest in the pipeline was driven by
a commercial decision on the part of TransCanada. The
Government of Canada is obligated under the treaty to be
prepared to respond to TransCanada's compliance filings that are
expected in October 2012.
1:26:55 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON thanked the presenters for their time.
HB 191-DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
1:27:13 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 191, "An Act establishing a state department
of agriculture and food and relating to its powers and duties;
relating to the powers and duties of the Department of
Environmental Conservation and the Department of Natural
Resources; and providing for an effective date."
1:28:33 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS), Version 27-LS0458\B, Bannister, 2/7/12, as the working
document. There being no objection, Version B was before the
committee.
1:29:11 PM
LYNETTE BERGH, Staff, Representative Steve Thompson, Alaska
State Legislature, informed the committee Representative
Thompson sponsored HB 191 at the request of the Alaska Farm
Bureau. As a businessman, Representative Thompson supports a
strong and diversified Alaska economy, and the Alaska Farm
Bureau sparked his interest in maintaining and broadening the
agricultural economy of the state to provide a safe, long-term
food supply. In the 1970s, Governor Jay Hammond established the
following goals: broaden the economic base of the state through
agricultural production; stabilize real food costs by increasing
local food; provide alternative job opportunities through
expanded agriculture; and improve rural life by developing an
economic base through agriculture. In addition, the current
trend is to eat locally. Alaska has seen a surge in Farmer's
Markets, Alaska's disease-free potatoes are in demand, Fairbanks
has a garden-in-the-schools program, and greenhouses are showing
potential for success. Representative Thompson sponsored HB 191
in order to hear about these and other ideas on how to enhance,
maintain, and grow the health of agriculture in Alaska. At this
time most states have a department of agriculture, with only the
exceptions of Rhode Island and Alaska. The proposed bill is a
work in progress, and she said Representative Thompson invited
the committee to assist in strengthening agriculture in order to
help all Alaskans.
1:32:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired whether provisions regarding
horticulture would be included in the bill.
1:32:58 PM
JANE PIERSON, Staff, Representative Steve Thompson, Alaska State
Legislature, said horticulture is included in the bill as a
component of farming.
CO-CHAIR SEATON noted on page 1, line 13 of the bill,
horticulture is listed with other fields of the agricultural
industry.
1:33:44 PM
MS. BERGH provided a sectional analysis beginning with Section
1, which amends AS 03.05.010, dealing with agriculture and food,
to change the responsible commissioner to the commissioner of
agriculture and food, add some responsibilities to the list of
responsibilities, and exempt retail food establishments, food
processing, and fish or fisheries product establishments from
its coverage. Section 2 amends AS 03.05.011(a), which relates
to certain powers over animals and animal products, and exempts
retail food establishments from its coverage.
1:34:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether Section 1 pulls all of the
responsibilities dealing with agriculture from the commissioner
of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
MS. PIERSON replied yes.
1:35:12 PM
MS. BERGH, continuing the review of the sectional analysis,
explained that Section 4 would amend statute such that the
proposed Department of Agriculture and Food (DOAF) and its
commissioner would be responsible for appointing or employing
the state veterinarian for animal products over which DOAF has
jurisdiction. Section 5 would make DOAF and its commissioner
responsible for employing or appointing the state coordinator
for noxious weed, invasive plant, and agricultural pest
management.
1:35:53 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked whether Section 4 is the only provision in
which a power or duty is being taken from a department other
than DNR.
MS. PIERSON answered no, explaining that the duties are mixed
between DNR and DEC. Therefore, there are many
[duties/responsibilities] that DOAF will take from DEC and DNR.
1:36:37 PM
MS. BERGH, returning to the sectional analysis, pointed out that
Sections 6 and 7 amend the statute relating to elk farming. The
sections would change the responsible commissioner to the
commissioner of DOAF who shall provide the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G) with copies of elk farming applications and
licenses.
1:36:59 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked if beyond merely providing the application
and license to ADF&G, there is consultation in terms of when
DOAF would issue a license.
MS. PIERSON offered to check that.
1:37:43 PM
MS. BERGH, continuing the sectional analysis, explained that
Section 8 amends statute such that the fencing standards for elk
will be established under DOAF. Section 9 places the power to
regulate elk farming in DOAF.
1:38:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised that currently the fencing
standards for elk are regulated by DNR and HB 191 would change
who regulates them but doesn't introduce a new responsibility.
MS. BERGH replied yes.
1:38:26 PM
MS. BERGH moved on to Section 10, which amends the statute for
criminal penalties for violations of regulations under the
chapter made by the DOAF and DNR. Section 11 establishes civil
fines for violations of quarantines or embargos made by DOAF and
DEC. Section 12 states that DOAF, DEC, or a court may impose
civil fines authorized by the chapter. Section 13 redefines
"animal" to exclude fish or fisheries products and adds new
definitions to include "commissioner" and "department" as DOAF
for the chapter. Section 14 directs the commissioner of DOAF to
appoint an employee of DOAF as the director of the Board of
Agriculture and Conservation to oversee the daily operations of
the agricultural revolving loan fund (ARLF). Section 15
specifies that the commissioner of DOAF will establish the
regulations for disposal of property acquired by the Board of
Agriculture and Conservation in order to ensure that the
property is disposed of in a manner that maximizes the return to
the state. Section 16 amends statute such that DOAF is the
department responsible for establishing and maintaining the
plant materials center and Section 17 specifies that DOAF is one
of the agencies that appoints the administrator of the plant
materials center. Section 18 identifies the commissioner of
DOAF as the commissioner to whom a district judge sends a copy
of an order related to the establishment, addition, elimination,
or dissolution of a controlled livestock district.
1:40:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding that
currently invasive animal species are addressed by the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game. She asked if that would remain the
case or would DOAF address such issues.
MS. PIERSON answered that [per HB 191] invasive animal species
would be addressed by DOAF, except for fish and fish products.
1:41:11 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked whether the responsibility to address
invasive plant species would be transferred to DOAF.
MS. PIERSON said she will get back to the committee with regard
to invasive plant species, as it was not addressed in the
legislation because it isn't part of Title 3.
CO-CHAIR SEATON questioned whether the definition of "fish"
under Title 3 would include aquatic plants and animals or would
it include what's commonly considered commercial fish and
fisheries products.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI related his understanding that aquatic
plants are regulated under ADF&G.
MS. PIERSON told the committee that the intent was for ADF&G to
maintain the oversight of [aquatic plants], but she offered to
check to be sure that is the case.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON mentioned that there was an invasive
species in a harbor near Sitka to which the Division of Sport
Fish responded. Although it's the division's responsibility,
the staff isn't accustomed to such issues and responded poorly,
she opined. Therefore, she expressed interest in moving the
responsibility of invasive species elsewhere.
1:44:07 PM
MS. BERGH, returning to the sectional analysis, directed
attention to Section 19, which identifies the commissioner of
DOAF as the person to whom one applies for a brand mark.
Section 20 specifies that DOAF is responsible for determining
whether apiary inspectors are qualified. Sections 21-24 amend
statute such that DOAF is the responsible department for bees
and beekeeping. Section 25 amends the definitions for
commissioner and department to DOAF. Section 26 establishes the
role of DOAF in assisting in the development and implementation
in the farm-to-school program. Section 27 provides the
commissioner of DOAF the power to regulate food except for fish
and fisheries products. Section 28 specifies the duties of the
commissioner of DOAF to regulate fish and fisheries products,
including seafood raising and processing, and to inspect retail
food establishments. Sections 29 and 30 direct DOAF to adopt
regulations relating to definitions and standards for
agricultural food and to establish a mobile canned agricultural
food products inspection service. Sections 31 and 32 place the
duty to regulate hormone labeling in milk under DOAF. Sections
33 and 34 amend statute to make changes to conform to the new
division of responsibilities between the departments. Section
34 also makes stylistic and clarifying changes. Sections 35 and
36 separate the responsibilities for the sales and labeling of
frozen meat, fish, and poultry between DOAF and DEC.
1:46:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK requested further clarification regarding
Sections 35 and 36.
MS. PIERSON offered to provide information to the committee
after she is able to review Title 17.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK related his thought that DOAF would be more
amenable to getting the sales and labeling in motion while DEC
would seem to be more reluctant in that area.
MS. PIERSON responded that she doesn't disagree with
Representative Dick's thought.
1:47:55 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON interjected that the aforementioned may be
because DOAF hasn't taken over the food safety inspections.
Some cooperation between the departments may be necessary.
MS. PIERSON agreed, adding that food is currently covered by
both DNR and DEC.
1:48:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI related his understanding that there
will be no diminishment of the current regulations or health and
safety standards established by DNR and DEC. He surmised that
this legislation basically takes statutes from DEC and statutes
from DNR and more appropriately places them within DOAF.
MS. PIERSON stated her agreement with Representative Kawasaki.
1:49:23 PM
MS. BERGH, continuing her sectional analysis, explained that
Section 44 allows DOAF to adopt regulations for efficient
enforcement of its respective portions of AS 17.20.180. Section
45 amends AS 17.20.200(a) such that it limits the food covered
in the subsection to fish and fisheries products over which DEC
has responsibility. Section 46 adds an inspection equivalent to
AS 17.20.200(a) to cover DOAF's access and inspection authority.
Section 47 amends statute to add DOAF as a department that may
issue reports. Section 48 limits the food-related subjects over
which DEC has jurisdiction to fish, fisheries products, and
retail establishments. Section 49 adds an information
dissemination equivalent to AS 17.20.200(a) to cover DOAF's
information dissemination authority. Section 50 amends statute
that relates to DEC's power to detain or embargo fish or fish
products that are dangerous or fraudulent. Section 51 gives
DOAF the power to detain or embargo agricultural food that is
adulterated or misbranded in a manner that's dangerous or
fraudulent. Section 52 adds DOAF to the list of departments
that can petition for condemnation of a food. Section 53 allows
DOAF to destroy adulterated or misbranded goods under its
purview and Section 54 provides DOAF the oversight of relabeling
of misbranded food items under its purview. Section 55 provides
DOAF oversight of destruction of contaminated food items under
its purview. Section 56 gives DOAF the ability to apply to the
superior court for injunctions against persons violating
provisions of the chapter. Section 57 amends statute to limit
the food-related acts to fish, fisheries products, and retail
food establishments. Section 58 adds an enforcement action
equivalent to AS 17.20.290(b) to cover DOAF's enforcement action
authority. Section 59 amends AS 17.20.315(c) to give DOAF the
power to impose civil fines for serious violations of the
chapter. Section 60 amends statute to state that nothing in the
chapter requires DOAF to report minor violations. Section 61
makes changes to conform the section to the new division of
responsibilities between the departments. Section 62 adds
definitions to AS 17.20 for "agricultural food." Section 63 is
a conforming change. Section 64 amends statute such that DOAF
food inspection receipts are in a specific category of program
receipts and reflects the change in the division of
responsibilities under AS 17.20. Section 65 amends statutes
that relate to the clearing and draining of agricultural land
such that the statute changes the responsibility to DOAF.
Section 66 lists the new DOAF as a principal department of the
state. Section 67 removes agriculture and soil conservation
from DNR's responsibility. Section 68 limits the application of
certain provisions because DOAF will be performing some
activities in the same general categories as DEC. Section 69
amends statute relating to DEC's powers such that it limits the
application of certain provisions to reflect DEC's new food and
animal-related responsibilities under AS 03.05 and AS 17.20.
Section 70 adds a new chapter to establish the new DOAF.
Section 71 amends statute to add DOAF to the agencies enforcing
AS 17.20 and that are subject to the general administrative
adjudication provisions of AS 44.62.330- 44.62.630. Section 72
amends statute to change DOAF to be the agency identified as
subject to the general administrative adjudication provisions of
AS 44.62.330-AS 44.52.630 concerning the Alaska grain reserve
program. Section 73 repeals certain laws and per Section 74
those repeals are effective immediately under AS 01.10.070(c).
Section 75 is the effective date of July 1, 2014, except as
provided in Section 74.
1:54:23 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON requested a synopsis and a list of the statutes
being repealed.
1:54:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON observed that many fiscal notes
accompany HB 191 and requested a total of the amount of funds
being taken from one department to another.
MS. PIERSON offered to provide the committee with a side-by-
side.
1:55:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI pointed out that the sponsor statement
specifies that the intent of HB 191 is to use the current
Division of Agriculture's budget for the proposed DOAF.
MS. PIERSON confirmed that would be the idea.
1:56:16 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, referring to page 27, line 21, asked whether
the soil and water conservation districts would be under the
DOAF rather than under DNR as is currently the case.
MS. PIERSON replied yes. In further response to Co-Chair
Seaton, Ms. Pierson said that at this time there have not been
conversations with the districts or district organizations
regarding this matter.
1:57:16 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, referring to the new subsection added to AS
17.20.230 in Section 51, asked if the ability/authority in that
provision currently exists and is being moved from DEC or DNR.
MS. PIERSON related her belief that because DEC would retain
some of the powers [specified in the proposed new subsection in
Section 51, the proposed new subsection] adds DOAF. However,
she expressed the need to review Title 17 and provide
information on that to the committee.
CO-CHAIR SEATON expressed the need to identify those things that
are renaming and changing authority between departments,
repealing statutory powers, or creating new statutory powers.
1:59:20 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, referring to page 21 of HB 191, inquired as to
why the sponsor didn't include aquatic farms in agriculture.
MS. PIERSON responded that the sponsor felt it was best to leave
aquatic farms with ADF&G and have DOAF address mostly land-based
agriculture. In further response to Co-Chair Seaton, Ms.
Pierson recalled that [maintaining aquatic farming in ADF&G] was
[desired by] the Farm Bureau.
2:01:04 PM
JOHN POIRRIER, Alaska State Grange, began by relating support
for HB 191. He opined that in general HB 191 wouldn't add any
more government, but rather would consolidate existing functions
into a single entity. The aforementioned, he further opined, is
an action necessary to move the state toward self-sufficiency in
terms of the ability to feed the state's citizens long term.
The DOAF would be better able to attract more people into the
industry. The whole idea of agriculture relies heavily on
passing an agriculture business down to the next generation.
The hope is to create more opportunities for those seeking
employment in the agriculture industry, which he said he
believes HB 191 will move in that direction. By elevating [the
Division of Agriculture] to a department level, it would provide
it more visibility and a more balanced approach to managing
agriculture in Alaska. As was mentioned earlier, there are only
two states in the nation without an agriculture department. He
highlighted that of those two states, one is the largest
geographic state and one the smallest geographic state.
2:04:24 PM
MARIE RICE, Rancher, told the committee that she has been
involved in ranching and agriculture in Alaska since 1963. She
then informed the committee that she has become involved with
sustainability. In fact, this is her third year with hoop
houses. By the end of 2012, the goal is to have 300 hoop houses
in the Kenai/Kodiak area. There have been some difficulties
getting a nonagricultural community to develop some codes, and
therefore they need help. The DOAF would provide an entity that
would more clearly define agriculture. The geographic
challenges in Alaska support the need for organizing and helping
people grow their own food. Ms. Rice noted that the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) took a lot of land out of
agricultural production, and therefore she expressed interest in
working with Native Alaskans to create a viable use of their
land. In conclusion, Ms. Rice stated support for HB 191 and
recalled that when the Department of Agriculture was reduced to
a division there was concern that the agricultural emphasis
would be somewhat lost, which was the case.
2:07:44 PM
BRYCE WRIGLEY, President, Alaska Farm Bureau, remarked that for
the last 30 years agriculture has been [stagnant]. He
acknowledged that in some of his prior testimony he has been
fairly critical of DNR and the Division of Agriculture because
as important as oil and gas is there is only so much time for
planning and agriculture often is a footnote in the reports.
The importance of agriculture to Alaska isn't necessarily
measured by the value of its economic contribution to the
state's economy but rather in the security and the rural
development it can provide. While he understands the role of
DNR in administering the state's oil and gas resources, it's
important to understand the importance of food itself. He
recalled disruptions to the transportation system that have
resulted in food shortages on the shelf. In looking to the
future and learning from the past, nothing has changed the role
or importance of transportation. The only way that Alaska can
have a food security system is through agriculture. Therefore,
it's important for a department to be organized to administer
the role of agriculture in the state. He noted that about 95
percent of the food eaten in Alaska is imported, which is a
great risk as well as a great opportunity. Therefore, there
needs to be a long-term plan for developing a food security
system for Alaska that will accommodate 700,000 for a period of
time.
2:12:02 PM
MR. WRIGLEY suggested that DOAF be tasked with developing and
implementing a long-term plan for sustainable food independence.
Such a plan would benefit everyone in the state not just the
farmers in the state. He informed the committee that the
Department of Revenue reports that in fiscal year 2010 $4.6
billion was brought in from oil production revenue. In
comparison, Alaskans spend $2.5 billion in food, most of which
goes out of the state and stays out of the state. If 30 percent
of that $2.5 billion money stayed within the state and turned
over in the economy, the multiplier effect would result in $4
billion worth of economic activity that doesn't occur today.
Mr. Wrigley emphasized the need to look beyond the last drop of
oil in the pipeline and determine methods and processes to keep
the state's economy going. He suggested that $4 billion in
economic activity is a start.
2:13:48 PM
MR. WRIGLEY addressed why one would want a Department of
Agriculture and Food as opposed to a division is related to
access. When the governor sits down with his/her commissioners,
there is no commissioner for agriculture yet there are so many
aspects of agriculture that could assist with the development of
other planning processes in the various departments. Again, the
DNR commissioner does not have the time to deal with agriculture
given the hours of his/her time taken up by oil and gas issues.
2:15:12 PM
MR. WRIGLEY acknowledged that HB 191 has an indeterminate fiscal
note, which can be of concern. However, he expressed concern
that an agency that doesn't want the legislation to move forward
could submit an exorbitantly high fiscal note knowing the
legislation won't move forward because of it. He reiterated
that the legislation seeks direction in terms of planning and
access. Therefore, he indicated that the cost of this
legislation won't be several million dollars, although he
acknowledged that a new commissioner would have to be hired. He
then questioned the cost of not doing something.
2:15:56 PM
MR. WRIGLEY recalled reading that people are held back more by
their lack of imagination than by their circumstances. He then
expressed concern that within the bureaucracy the same ideas
keep circulating as solutions although they haven't worked for
30 years. It's the lack of imagination that keeps the problem
from being solved. As long as people believe there is no
solution, they seek an exit plan rather than a solution.
However, Mr. Wrigley opined that there is a solution and the
state can have a secure food supply. Currently, Alaska grows
something from all of the food groups in the nutrition pyramid.
Alaska can already grow a balanced diet in Alaska, it just isn't
done enough. In conclusion, Mr. Wrigley emphasized that Alaska
can't keep maintaining the status quo if it is serious about
increasing the state's self-reliance such that there is a food
security system for the state that guarantees people safe and
affordable food when transportation is interrupted.
2:18:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER recalled that Mr. Wrigley mentioned
agriculture in terms of food security and potential for rural
development. He inquired as to potential examples of those.
MR. WRIGLEY said that Tim Meyers in Bethel is a good example of
a remote rural area that can benefit from an agricultural
project, albeit small. Mr. Meyers is growing fresh food that is
sold in the local stores. Although there are only two million
farmers, nationwide agriculture has always been a big job
creator as agriculture accounts for about 14 percent of all
jobs. Agriculture isn't just about growing/raising the food,
it's also about processing and selling it.
2:20:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI agreed that the administration hasn't
put in a lot of time on agriculture and thanked Mr. Wrigley for
his time working on this issue. He then inquired as to why
agriculture should be a separate department as it would add to a
bureaucracy that's already fairly large.
MR. WRIGLEY pointed out that the most important functions of
government or life are shelter, food, and water. However, the
state isn't providing food. He highlighted the issue of access
recalling when the Port of Anchorage froze in 1989 and the
grocery store shelves were bare. He then highlighted the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when it took two weeks to get
food into an area with an emergency plan and that was located
only 100 miles away from food sources. Alaska, on the other
hand, is much farther away from its food sources. Therefore,
the question is what Alaska would do when something interrupts
the transportation system, which will inevitably happen. He
then expressed confidence that there is the opportunity to
establish processes to address [the potential interruption in
the transportation system that would impact Alaska's food
source].
2:24:54 PM
BRUCE WILLARD, Willard Farms, informed the committee that he has
been involved in agriculture, beef cattle commercially in Homer
since 1959. As has been mentioned, agriculture seems to take a
back seat. For people to become involved in agriculture takes
money. He indicated the need for a secure market for one's
product and for the state to be behind [agriculture]. In terms
of the beef industry, he highlighted that for years the rumor
has been that the slaughter house is going to close, which
doesn't entice folks to enter the beef industry. Furthermore,
there are many people who have been waiting for years for
leases. For example, after holding the Fox River Valley lease
in Homer for 40-50 years, Mr. Willard could only obtain a one-
year renewal once it came up for renewal. Mr. Willard
emphasized the need for a department of agriculture so there is
only one place for people [in agriculture] to go.
2:28:31 PM
BILL BURTON, Kodiak Game Ranch; President, Kodiak Farm Bureau,
agreed that the leases are a large problem. He recalled
transitioning from the federal [leases] to the state [leases]
when he went without a lease for nine years, which makes it very
difficult to get a [loan]. A department of agriculture would
make a huge difference in this regard, particularly since DNR is
more interested in oil leases. A long-term lease would make a
huge difference in terms of livestock. He then turned attention
to the bear predation of cattle and noted that in the Lower 48
ranchers are reimbursed for predation. While he clarified that
he isn't advocating for the aforementioned necessarily, he went
into game ranching because of the bear predation on his cattle.
Mr. Burton asserted that Kodiak and the Aleutian Islands are
outstanding locations to raise livestock, which are sorely
needed in Alaska. Also, there's the capability to produce much
more livestock in Alaska than is currently being produced.
Although ANCSA took quite a bit of the ranch lands in Kodiak,
potential remains in Kodiak and elsewhere. Mr. Burton
reiterated the difficulty with obtaining leases.
2:32:15 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON interjected that the hope is to address the long
timeframes with leases by placing more staff in DNR to deal with
the leases and permits.
2:32:41 PM
MR. BURTON, in conclusion, remarked that the current DNR is one
of the most agriculture-minded the state has had, but that could
change with a different administration. Therefore, having a
separate department of agriculture would address many of the
problems.
2:34:23 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked whether DNR has a position on HB 191 and
whether it would elevate agriculture in Alaska.
2:34:43 PM
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources,
related that DNR doesn't have a position on HB 191. However, he
stated that DNR has put a lot of effort into the agriculture and
has made some progress, but allowed that establishing a
department of agriculture would certainly elevate the visibility
of the agricultural industry.
2:35:48 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON noted that HB 191 wasn't introduced to knock
DNR, but rather to help enhance the position of agriculture in
the state. Speaking to Ms. Ryan, Co-Chair Seaton asked whether
DEC sees anything in Version B that would compromise [the health
of agriculture] or the cooperation between the various
regulatory bodies.
2:37:19 PM
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, pointed out that under
Version B the state veterinarian's office would be moved from
the Division of Environmental Health within DEC to the proposed
DOAF. The state veterinarian oversees several programs for the
production of animal products, primarily milk and cheese, for
human consumption. The legislation also removes the ability of
the Division of Environmental Health to regulate agricultural
foods and provides that authority to the new proposed
department, while leaving retail food and seafood in the
Division of Environmental Health. Ms. Ryan identified the
processing of non-agricultural food as an area that's missing
from the legislation. The Division of Environmental Health
permits about 170 food processors in Alaska, the majority of
which are non-agriculturally based foods. Such foods aren't
covered under DEC or the proposed DOAF.
2:40:51 PM
REX WRIGLEY said he is in favor of the reinstatement of the
[proposed DOAF] because farmers can realize what's needed better
since it's their livelihood. He highlighted that throughout
civilizations food has been one of the first things considered.
Therefore, [there should be a department] governing food.
2:43:17 PM
RUBY HOLLEMBAEK, Owner & Operator, Alaska Interior Game Ranch;
President, Alaska Diversified Livestock Association, summarized
her written statement, which was included in the committee
packet, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The Alaska Department of Agriculture and Food would
work with officials on the local, state and federal
level to benefit all Alaskans involved in the
agriculture industry. When Alaska regains their
Department of Agriculture, they would regain control
of their own budget. No industry can be supported as
an afterthought. That is what Alaskan agriculture has
become over the last 2.5 decades, an afterthought.
"In a report prepared (February 15, 2010) for
President Barack Obama and Secretary of the US
Department of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, and based on
forums conducted by State USADA Alaska Farm Service
Agency Danny Consenstein and Alaska State Director
USDA Rural Development Jim Nordlund the following
facts were derived from meetings held across Alaska
(Fairbanks, Kotzebue, Juneau and Anchorage) to provide
input on what works and what does not work when it
comes to job creation and retention, especially in
rural Alaska. Three areas for potential job growth
emerged from all four meetings:
· Food Systems
· Renewable energy/energy efficiency
· Rural Infrastructure
I see an Alaska Department of Agriculture and Food
being able to provide economic growth in food and
agriculture for our state in jobs with money being
reinvested in Alaska. I see it working closely with
the Department of Economic and Community Development
with efforts of increasing the industry, not for
industry sake but for making our state stronger by
providing agricultural endeavors that look at food,
fiber and fuel. My husband and I operate a game ranch
with bison and elk. A Department of Agriculture would
work with ranches such as ours, to increase the red
meat industry for our state. A reinstatement of a
Department of Agriculture would promote revitalization
for Alaska's livestock industry. Not only would
producers provide red meat, they would also provide
jobs for Alaskans. Alaskan agriculture would head up
endeavors such as alternative fuels like barley burner
stoves, straw pellet stoves and biomass possibilities.
This department would define and nurture economic
opportunity, including technology development, in the
food, fuel and fiber sectors. A department would
support growth in Alaskan agriculture by serving as an
advocate at the local, state and federal level;
defining and nurturing economic opportunity and
enhancing the stewardship of natural resources on
agricultural land. We are truly a renewable resource.
It's also about food security. Maybe a person walking
around Alaska wearing an FAA (Future Farmers of
America) jacket doesn't get the same head turning as a
jacket from a petroleum based company, but it should.
It should be a real head-turner. Agricultural
producers for our state would influence job creation,
security and economic development. It would increase
regional and local food security. It would support
economically efficient and ecologically sustainable
agriculture. Family friendly farming are not dirty
words. We might get dirty farming but we are very
friendly.
All other states except the largest and smallest
(Alaska & Rhode Island), have a cabinet level
department for agriculture. We had one too until, I
believe the early 1960's, just prior to the oil
pipeline. We are special, not having a cabinet level
department of agriculture is not a good way to be
special. North Dakota now surpasses us as an oil
producing state, the boom has come and gone once
again. It is time to apologize to farmers, ranchers,
producers and agriculture operators around the state
for putting them on the back burner as an economical
viability, for taking their industry out of a cabinet
level status and placing them as a division under DNR.
Our forefathers never intended that. They knew that
Alaska needed agriculture. They knew it was
imperative as a state, to be able to feed, clothe and
keep themselves warm was just as important as any gold
that was sought after.
It is time to reinstate the Alaska Department of
Agriculture. It is time to support the Alaska
Department of Agriculture and Food, HB 191.
2:47:47 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON then announced that HB 191 would be held over.
HJR 40-RS 2477 RIGHTS-OF-WAY
2:48:22 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 40, Commending the governor and
the administration for aggressively working to enforce the
rights of the state in R.S. 2477 rights-of-way; urging the
governor and the attorney general to develop a working alliance
with other western states to protect and enforce the states'
interests in ensuring access using rights-of-way authorized by
R.S. 2477; urging the governor and the attorney general to
support the State of Utah and the southern counties of Utah in a
lawsuit against the federal government concerning R.S. 2477
rights-of-way, including filing an amicus brief in support of
Utah; urging the governor to dedicate state resources to
establish, protect, and enforce the state's interests in R.S.
2477 rights-of-way and to preserve state rights-of-way against
encroachment by the federal government; urging the governor to
reestablish a federalism section in the Department of Law and
sections in the Department of Natural Resources and the
Department of Fish and Game to support the preservation of the
state's rights and powers in compact cases; and urging the
governor to prepare an appropriation request to fund an
aggressive effort by the state to resolve issues relating to
R.S. 2477 rights-of-way, including possible litigation, and to
continue to work to preserve the rights of the state in regard
to R.S. 2477 rights-of-way.
2:48:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, began by
explaining that R.S. 2477 stands for Revised Statutes 2477 1866,
which basically says that [the state] can obtain right-of-way
across federal land because the federal government wants to
encourage development. Representative Keller specified that the
intent of HJR 40 is to commend the governor and the Department
of Law (DOL) for the progress made while recognizing the things
that still need to be done. He highlighted that there is time
sensitivity with R.S. 2477s because as the state's older
citizens die, the information necessary to verify the R.S. 2477s
is lost.
2:50:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI directed attention to page 2, line 14,
which is a "WHEREAS" provision that addresses the number of
rights-of-way already in statute. He noted that Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) has identified 67 additional R.S. 2477s.
He then inquired as to how the R.S. 2477 process doesn't work.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed out that just because rights-of-
way are identified in statute doesn't mean they are recognized
by the U.S. Department of Interior and the U.S. Forest Service.
Therefore, the state has to adjudicate. He then suggested that
the state needs to put more resources behind the existing
process in order to have accurate records. Representative
Keller then recommended that the DOL representative would be
better to answer Representative Kawasaki's question.
2:52:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired how much money has been put
toward this issue so far. He recalled that the committee was
told that up to $8 million of general funds was attached to this
year's budget [for R.S. 2477s].
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated that litigation and adjudication
costs money. The recent expansion of the attorney is an example
of the funds appropriate in the past. He related his
understanding that $600,000 has been set aside for R.S. 2477s.
2:53:23 PM
KENT SULLIVAN, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Section (Juneau), Department of Law, told the
committee that he is the attorney that has been assigned and
dedicated to the R.S. 2477 issues. Since his hire in December,
he has attempted to revamp the R.S. 2477 prosecution strategy in
order to resolve claims more quickly and push things forward
more efficiently than has occurred in the past. To that end,
Mr. Sullivan and a representative from DNR traveled to Utah,
which has aggressively pursued R.S. 2477s, to learn from its
successes and failures. In fact, in the next three or so months
Utah will file 23 different cases on approximately 18,000
separate R.S. 2477 plans. Furthermore, Utah has had about 10-20
years of experience in the litigation of R.S. 2477 plans. He
said that the trip to Utah has proven helpful. For example, he
has helped DOL put together a prosecution strategy such that
Alaska will put forth its best cases first because Alaska
doesn't have much precedent on R.S. 2477s. Therefore, it's very
important in moving forward that Alaska establish strong and
favorable precedent from the beginning. He noted that he has
identified such cases and is seeking approval to move forward on
litigation now. Furthermore, the intent is to attempt a multi-
faceted approach rather than only using litigation to resolve
R.S. 2477 claims. For instance, he is reviewing confirming
public access rights through Title 5 of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Since the passage of FLPMA
and R.S. 2477 has been repealed there has been reluctance to do
that because under FLPMA the rights-of-way aren't perpetual and
could only be granted for 25 years at a time. The department
also wants to use the recordable disclaimer of interest process
the state has been using for navigable waterways. Although the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been reluctant to use the
aforementioned process for R.S. 2477s in the past, the hope is
that the pressure on the federal government in Utah will result
in a repositioning of that stance. Mr. Sullivan further stated
that DOL wants to review having these rights-of-way confirmed by
the land planning process of the federal government, which has
been successful in some cases in Utah.
2:59:10 PM
MR. SULLIVAN explained that DOL is attempting to supplement
DNR's R.S. 2477 files. When the initial set of roads were
identified and codified by the legislature as R.S. 2477s, the
real effort was identifying them and ensuring that certain
minimum criteria were met in identifying them as R.S. 2477s.
The focus wasn't on what it would take to prosecute a claim all
the way through litigation. He emphasized that there's a lot
that goes into a file to successfully prosecute something in
court, and therefore the files need to be supplemented. One of
the things needed is the identity of witnesses and witness
testimony. These witnesses are going to be individuals who have
knowledge of use and existence of these roads prior to 1969.
Therefore, there needs to be public outreach in order to
identify these people and place the information in the files.
Lastly, there needs to be a process to lock-in the testimony in
order to use it. The aforementioned can be accomplished by
petitioning the court to do pre-litigation depositions.
3:01:29 PM
MR. SULLIVAN then informed the committee that DOL is currently
involved in R.S. 2477 litigation in a case filed by Ahtna,
Incorporated out of Copper Center. The case is in state court
and the state hopes to achieve promising results. As was
mentioned earlier, DOL is considering initiating litigation very
shortly in federal court on some of the best case examples that
have been identified. Mr. Sullivan related his understanding
that in the past there was a Statehood Defense Unit within DOL
and that unit existed as a separate budgetary component within
the department through fiscal year 2010. At the time the agency
was subsumed within DOL, that unit had five attorneys that dealt
with navigability, R.S. 2477s, the Endangered Species Act, and
subsistence program issues. He highlighted that such issues
were dealt with before the creation of the unit as well as after
the creation of the unit. Although the only difference was that
there was the identity of a separate unit within DOL that
received a separate budgetary component, it was discovered that
having a separate unit placed constraints in terms of
supervision and management and wasn't the most efficient use of
time. Therefore, in fiscal year 2010 the unit was dissolved and
the functions and litigation is being handled by the Natural
Resources Section within DOL. For example, his position deals
with state's rights through R.S. 2477s and there is ongoing
litigation with regard to access through navigable waters in the
national parks.
3:04:47 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the language on page 3,
lines 22-24, which urges the governor to reestablish a
federalism section within DOL. However, he recalled that Mr.
Sullivan said that was determined not to be the most efficient
way to do things. Therefore, he inquired as to Mr. Sullivan's
thoughts.
MR. SULLIVAN said that DOL is still reviewing that it and may
provide comments on that point later. He clarified that he
merely wanted to provide the committee with some history
regarding that particular component.
CO-CHAIR SEATON then requested DOL's comments on that section in
a timely manner because the committee wants to bring the
resolution before it again soon.
3:07:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ suggested that that the language in the
"FURTHER RESOLVED" located on page 3, lines 22-27, be removed
and the resolution moved forward.
3:07:33 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that this is an introductory hearing
of only 15 minutes. He reminded the committee that he doesn't
intend to forward the resolution today. He then suggested that
Representative Munoz could work with the sponsor on the
provision. With that, HJR 40 was held over.
3:08:39 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:08 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 191 ver. M.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 191 |
| CSHB 191 ver. B.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 191 |
| HB 191 - SPONSOR_STATEMENT_HB_191 (Revised _2).pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 191 |
| HB 191 - Alaska Farm Bureau.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 191 |
| HB 191 -Alaska's State-Funded Ag Projects and Policy.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 191 |
| HB 191 - Community Perspective- Carol Lewis.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 191 |
| HB 191 - DOA Petition.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 191 |
| HB 191 - Hollembaek LTR of Support.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 191 |
| HB 191 - Letters of Support.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 191 |
| HJR040A.PDF |
HJUD 4/9/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 40 |
| HJR 40 Sponsor.pdf |
HJUD 4/9/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 40 |
| HJR 40 1866 mine bill.pdf |
HJUD 4/9/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 40 |
| HJR 40 BLM determination.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 40 |
| HJR 40 DNR Background.pdf |
HJUD 4/9/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 40 |
| HJR 40 GAO Report.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 40 |
| RS2477 Resources.pdf |
HJUD 4/9/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 40 |
| CSHB 191 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 191 |
| CSHB 191 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 191 |
| HB 191 testimony.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 191 |
| HB 191 testimony II.docx |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 191 |
| HJR 40 AG opin (No Print).pdf |
HJUD 4/9/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 40 |
| House Resources- Qs & As-RE- HB191 DOAF.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 191 |
| HB 191 Fiscal Note packet.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 191 |
| (H) RES ltr DEC re HB 191 3-30-12 (3).pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 191 |
| Email from Esther Tempel (DNR) RE- HB 191.docx |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 191 |