Legislature(2001 - 2002)

03/01/2002 01:10 PM RES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         March 1, 2002                                                                                          
                           1:10 p.m.                                                                                            
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair                                                                                          
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair                                                                                            
Representative Joe Green                                                                                                        
Representative Mike Chenault                                                                                                    
Representative Lesil McGuire                                                                                                    
Representative Gary Stevens                                                                                                     
Representative Mary Kapsner                                                                                                     
Representative Beth Kerttula                                                                                                    
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
All members present                                                                                                             
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
HOUSE BILL NO. 368                                                                                                              
"An Act authorizing the commissioner of community and economic                                                                  
development to refinance and extend the term of a fishery                                                                       
enhancement loan."                                                                                                              
     - MOVED CSHB 368(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
HOUSE BILL NO. 376                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to management of fish and game in and on the                                                                   
navigable waters and submerged lands of Alaska."                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
HOUSE BILL NO. 382                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to the evaluation and cleanup of sites where                                                                   
certain controlled substances may have been manufactured or                                                                     
     - MOVED CSHB 382(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
CONFIRMATION HEARING                                                                                                            
     Board of Game                                                                                                            
     - CONFIRMATION HEARING POSTPONED                                                                                           
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                               
BILL: HB 368                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:FISHERY ENHANCEMENT LOANS                                                                                           
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HARRIS                                                                                             
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
02/01/02     2116       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
02/01/02     2116       (H)        FSH, RES                                                                                     
02/08/02     2192       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): WILSON                                                                         
02/13/02     2257       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): MCGUIRE                                                                        
02/15/02     2292       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA                                                                       
02/25/02                (H)        FSH AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                   
02/25/02                (H)        Moved CSHB 368(FSH) Out of                                                                   
02/25/02                (H)        MINUTE(FSH)                                                                                  
02/27/02     2404       (H)        FSH RPT CS(FSH) 5DP 1NR                                                                      
02/27/02     2405       (H)        DP: DYSON, SCALZI, KERTTULA,                                                                 
02/27/02     2405       (H)        WILSON; NR: COGHILL                                                                          
02/27/02     2405       (H)        FN1: (CED)                                                                                   
02/27/02     2418       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): LANCASTER                                                                      
03/01/02                (H)        RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                   
BILL: HB 376                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:FISH & GAME IN NAVIGABLE WATERS                                                                                     
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)OGAN                                                                                               
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
02/01/02     2121       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
02/01/02     2121       (H)        RES, JUD                                                                                     
03/01/02                (H)        RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                   
BILL: HB 382                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:CLEANUP OF ILLEGAL DRUG SITES                                                                                       
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GUESS                                                                                              
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
02/04/02     2144       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
02/04/02     2144       (H)        RES, FIN                                                                                     
03/01/02                (H)        RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                   
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
JOHN MANLY, Staff                                                                                                               
to Representative John Harris                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 513                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION   STATEMENT:      Presented   HB  368   on   behalf   of                                                               
Representative Harris, sponsor.                                                                                                 
GREG WINEGAR, Director                                                                                                          
Division of Investments                                                                                                         
Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED)                                                                         
P.O. Box 34159                                                                                                                  
Juneau, Alaska  99803-4159                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified  that DEC is  neutral on  HB 368,                                                               
which would allow aquaculture  associations to refinance existing                                                               
loans to take advantage of lower interest rates.                                                                                
JOHN CARTER, Director                                                                                                           
Douglas Island Pink & Chum, Inc. (DIPAC)                                                                                        
2697 Channel Drive                                                                                                              
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified in  support of HB  368; indicated                                                               
refinancing is a good business practice.                                                                                        
DAVE COBB, Business Manager                                                                                                     
Valdez Fisheries Development Association (VFDA)                                                                                 
P.O. Box 125                                                                                                                    
Valdez, Alaska  99686                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified in  support of HB  368; indicated                                                               
the bill  is needed  by the commercial  fishing industry  and the                                                               
hatchery  system   to  remain   competitive  in   today's  global                                                               
fisheries environment.                                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN                                                                                                       
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 108                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801-1182                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Spoke as sponsor of HB 376.                                                                                
DICK BISHOP                                                                                                                     
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)                                                                                                    
1555 Gus's Grind                                                                                                                
Fairbanks, Alaska  99709                                                                                                        
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Testified  that AOC  supports  HB 376  and                                                               
believes  it  is  important to  reemphasize  the  Alaska  Supreme                                                               
Court's finding.                                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE GRETCHEN GUESS                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 112                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801-1182                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified as sponsor of HB 382.                                                                            
NATHAN JOHNSON, Staff                                                                                                           
to Representative Gretchen Guess                                                                                                
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
716 West 4th, Suite 200                                                                                                         
Anchorage, Alaska  99501                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 382.                                                                                       
JULIA GRIMES, Lieutenant                                                                                                        
Alaska State Troopers                                                                                                           
Department of Public Safety                                                                                                     
5700 East Tudor Road                                                                                                            
Anchorage, Alaska  99507                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified in  support of HB  382; indicated                                                               
the  state  has an  obligation  to  be aggressive  in  evaluating                                                               
harmfulness of sites and protecting public health.                                                                              
TIM ROGERS, Legislative Program Coordinator                                                                                     
Municipality of Anchorage                                                                                                       
P.O. Box 196650                                                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska  99519                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified in  support of HB  382; indicated                                                               
the bill  sets up a very  good process to ensure  that properties                                                               
are made safe for future tenants.                                                                                               
KURT KORNCHUCK, Detective                                                                                                       
Anchorage Police Department                                                                                                     
1630 East Tudor Road                                                                                                            
Anchorage, Alaska  99507                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified in  support of HB  382; indicated                                                               
illegal  drug labs  are  a very  big problem  and  that the  bill                                                               
provides  a  tremendous  benefit  for people  with  children  who                                                               
unknowingly rent these sites.                                                                                                   
JANICE ADAIR, Director                                                                                                          
Division of Environmental Health                                                                                                
Department of Environmental Conservation                                                                                        
555 Cordova Street                                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska  99501                                                                                                        
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Testified  on HB  382; answered  technical                                                               
questions regarding testing of substances.                                                                                      
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
TAPE 02-12, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR  DREW   SCALZI  called  the  House   Resources  Standing                                                               
Committee meeting to order at  1:10 p.m.  Representatives Scalzi,                                                               
Masek, Fate, Kapsner,  Chenault, and Stevens were  present at the                                                               
call  to order.    Representatives McGuire,  Green, and  Kerttula                                                               
arrived as the meeting was in progress.                                                                                         
HB 368-FISHERY ENHANCEMENT LOANS                                                                                              
Number 0010                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR  DREW  SCALZI announced  the  first  order of  business,                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  368,  "An Act  authorizing  the commissioner  of                                                               
community and  economic development  to refinance and  extend the                                                               
term of a  fishery enhancement loan."  [Before  the committee was                                                               
CSHB 368(FSH).]                                                                                                                 
Number 0089                                                                                                                     
JOHN  MANLY, Staff  to Representative  John Harris,  Alaska State                                                               
Legislature,  presented  HB  368   on  behalf  of  Representative                                                               
Harris, sponsor.   Mr.  Manly told the  committee the  bill would                                                               
allow  the  commissioner to  reduce  interest  rates and  perhaps                                                               
extend the term on the  fisheries enhancement loan to ensure that                                                               
the hatcheries are more viable.                                                                                                 
Number 0275                                                                                                                     
GREG WINEGAR,  Director, Division  of Investments,  Department of                                                               
Community  and Economic  Development (DCED),  explained that  [HB
368] would  allow aquaculture associations to  refinance existing                                                               
loans  and  thereby  take  advantage   of  lower  interest  rates                                                               
[presently]  in effect;  the process  is  similar to  that for  a                                                               
homeowner  refinancing a  home  loan.   He  said  [DCED] has  the                                                               
ability under  the commercial fishing  revolving loan fund.   Mr.                                                               
Winegar  mentioned  that similar  legislation  was  passed a  few                                                               
years ago.   He said  a number  of commercial fishermen  are also                                                               
refinancing their loans at this time                                                                                            
MR. WINEGAR  indicated although  there will be  an impact  on the                                                               
[revenue],  as shown  in the  fiscal note,  this won't  adversely                                                               
impact the fund,  which is very strong; furthermore,  the fund is                                                               
completely revolving and  doesn't get any money  from the general                                                               
fund, so it won't impact the  integrity of that fund.  He pointed                                                               
out that lowering  the interest rate on these  loans will improve                                                               
the financial  picture of [aquaculture] associations,  so it will                                                               
increase their  ability to service  existing debt.   Finally, [HB
368]  will not  have an  negative impact  from an  administrative                                                               
standpoint.   There  is a  very streamlined  process in  place to                                                               
handle  these  kinds   of  requests  and  it   won't  create  any                                                               
difficulties, he said.   In response to a  question from Co-Chair                                                               
Scalzi,  he said  DCED has  no  difficulties with  [HB 368];  the                                                               
official position is neutral.                                                                                                   
CO-CHAIR  SCALZI  asked  Mr.  Winegar if  he  had  contacted  the                                                               
Department  of Revenue  and [determined]  that the  fiscal impact                                                               
would be minimal to the fund itself.                                                                                            
MR. WINEGAR answered in the affirmative.                                                                                        
Number 0516                                                                                                                     
JOHN CARTER, Director, Douglas Island  Pink & Chum, Inc. (DIPAC),                                                               
testified  before  the committee.    He  reported that  during  a                                                               
presentation  of   the  fish  caucus,  the   McDowell  Group  had                                                               
demonstrated that  the enhancement  program across the  state has                                                               
become a  serious economic engine for  Alaska.  He said,  "In the                                                               
last ten years,  the economic output - the  first wholesale value                                                               
-  was something  on  the  order of  $1.4  billion."   Given  the                                                               
troubled times occurring now, he  said those kinds of numbers are                                                               
very  important.    In  2000,  it  was  over  $200  million,  and                                                               
approximately  $7 million  to $10  million in  sport-fish revenue                                                               
through charters and so forth.                                                                                                  
MR.  CARTER told  members the  McDowell Group's  presentation was                                                               
interesting because [it highlighted] how  many areas of the state                                                               
are impacted.   He said the situation  is "use or pay."   It used                                                               
to be that  the state, through the Alaska Department  of Fish and                                                               
Game (ADF&G),  paid for  the enhancement  program in  Alaska with                                                               
annual  appropriations.    He  explained  that  fishermen  pay  a                                                               
percentage to  their regional  [aquaculture association]  for the                                                               
enhancement and  cost-recovery, so the state  doesn't really have                                                               
to pay out anything.                                                                                                            
MR.  CARTER referred  to questions  about the  general fund.   He                                                               
offered his thinking  that there's a positive  impact because the                                                               
raw  fish tax  adds  up  to between  $1  million  and $2  million                                                               
annually, which  goes into  the general fund.   A  similar amount                                                               
goes to communities where the money  was raised or where the fish                                                               
were  caught.   He said  he thinks  it's good  business to  allow                                                               
refinancing;  in  private  industry,  it's going  on  across  the                                                               
country.  It would help  hatcheries become more financially sound                                                               
and,  in  many  cases,  would  allow more  fish  to  get  to  the                                                               
fishermen.  In the  case of DIPAC, for example, he  said a lot of                                                               
what  "we" do  is for  the sport  fish community;  it's one  more                                                               
chance to  allow "us"  to do  that work.   He told  the committee                                                               
that he would appreciate support of [HB 368].                                                                                   
CO-CHAIR SCALZI remarked that it  was a very good presentation at                                                               
the  fish  caucus;  moreover,  the hatcheries  did  a  great  job                                                               
showing the  financial impact to  the state.   He referred  to an                                                               
information sheet and  said about 11 hatcheries  will be affected                                                               
by  [HB 368].   He  said if  the loans  are received  today, they                                                               
could be as low as 6 percent,  compared to 9 percent.  He pointed                                                               
out that  the savings  on the  interest the  hatcheries [realize]                                                               
goes directly to  the common property; moreover,  it would offset                                                               
the expenses  of running a  hatchery, so there is  more available                                                               
for  the  harvesters.    He  remarked that  any  savings  to  the                                                               
hatchery is, in turn, put back into the economy.                                                                                
Number 0871                                                                                                                     
DAVE  COBB,   Business  Manager,  Valdez   Fisheries  Development                                                               
Association (VFDA), testified via  teleconference.  Mr. Cobb told                                                               
the  committee [HB  368]  is one  of the  "tools"  needed by  the                                                               
commercial  fishing industry  and the  hatchery system  to remain                                                               
competitive  in  today's  global   fisheries  environment.    The                                                               
refinancing  of hatchery  loans at  the prevailing  interest rate                                                               
will allow most  hatcheries to reduce their  annual loan payments                                                               
and cost of operations significantly,  he said.  Any reduction in                                                               
the overall operation  budget of VFDA will mean more  fish to the                                                               
commercial fishermen in the area.                                                                                               
MR. COBB  said VFDA believes  although this bill is  important to                                                               
the state  hatchery system, it is  only one of many  changes that                                                               
must occur  if the Alaskan fishing  industry is to survive.   The                                                               
hatchery system  established by the  legislature in 1974  has met                                                               
or exceeded  expectations, he suggested.   The  commercial common                                                               
property harvest  [of] hatchery salmon exceeds  1 billion pounds;                                                               
there has been an ex-vessel value  of more than $340 million over                                                               
the last  ten years.   Every opportunity the hatchery  system has                                                               
to become more cost-effective and  cost-efficient only makes good                                                               
business sense, he added.                                                                                                       
MR. COBB told members, "We have  been good stewards of the public                                                               
funds  entrusted to  us to  raise fish;  this bill  allows us  to                                                               
manage  those  funds  more  effectively  and  efficiently."    He                                                               
suggested the  competitive playing  field has changed  for Alaska                                                               
from a  strong market presence  to massive global  competition in                                                               
dumping fisheries  products on the  market at less than  the cost                                                               
of  production.   Alaska,  VFDA, and  all  industry players  must                                                               
change   in  order   to  survive   in  this   competitive  global                                                               
marketplace, he  said.   He reiterated that  [HB 368]  makes good                                                               
business  sense and  will  have  no impact  on  the general  fund                                                               
Number 1034                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE FATE  remarked that [HB 368]  is a good bill.   He                                                               
referred to [page 3, paragraph  (11)] and suggested adding, "or a                                                               
condition which  jeopardizes the fishery or  the hatchery," after                                                               
the  word  "borrower".     He  indicated  this   would  give  the                                                               
commissioner a better tool in  ascertaining the condition of that                                                               
fishery and  possibly allowing  a blanket  reduction of  term, if                                                               
applied  for.   He indicated  that [the  suggested change]  would                                                               
create fairness and extend the bill to do a better job.                                                                         
MR. WINEGAR said  he didn't have any difficulty  with adding that                                                               
language, which  would [result in]  broader abilities.   He added                                                               
that the current wording also works well.                                                                                       
CO-CHAIR   SCALZI   expressed   concern   about   an   unforeseen                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked  Mr. Winegar if there is  a risk of                                                               
having a problem with his fiduciary duty in the trust.                                                                          
MR. WINEGAR explained that each  [borrower] would be looked at on                                                               
an individual basis, which is how [the department] handles this.                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  asked  Mr.  Winegar how  a  fishery  is                                                               
looked  at,  and  whether  the  [suggested  language  change]  is                                                               
unnecessary and runs the risk of "opening you up somehow."                                                                      
MR.  WINEGAR  reiterated that  each  would  be  looked at  on  an                                                               
individual  basis,  to  ensure that  the  particular  aquaculture                                                               
association is  in good standing.   He  said he didn't  think the                                                               
[suggested language change] would  preclude [the department] from                                                               
doing  so.   He  said there  is a  streamlined  process, but  the                                                               
[borrower] would need to apply for the refinancing.                                                                             
Number 1336                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE   STEVENS    requested   clarification    of   the                                                               
"conditions" in the [suggested language change].                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FATE offered  the example of a borrower  that is a                                                               
fleet  [belonging to  a company].   He  remarked, "If  that fleet                                                               
were to  go under because  you didn't  extend the term,  it would                                                               
affect   the   fishery,  and   that   has   to  be   taken   into                                                               
consideration."    He  said  he  was  thinking  beyond  just  the                                                               
individual borrower and of the effect  it might have on a fishery                                                               
under certain  circumstances.  He  said he wanted to  expand [the                                                               
language] so  the department wasn't "hand-tied."   The perception                                                               
would be  that there would be  an even playing field.   This goes                                                               
beyond the perception,  he said - it goes to  the actual world of                                                               
finance where things  can happen.  He mentioned  the recent Enron                                                               
[financial  collapse] and  how it  affected the  entire financial                                                               
CO-CHAIR  SCALZI expressed  concerns that  the present  fisheries                                                               
and the  state of the loan  programs are very "touchy."   He said                                                               
he can  appreciate the  concern and the  broadening of  the term,                                                               
but without having a lot  of discussion about what [the suggested                                                               
language change] would mean from  a legal standpoint, it might be                                                               
[better] to  leave it  as it is.   In regard  to hardship  on the                                                               
borrower,  the department  has  a  good latitude  of  how far  [a                                                               
borrower] can  go, he said.   He said  he would be  nervous about                                                               
tying the fishery in, because  the fisheries are in jeopardy now.                                                               
Moreover, he said  he wouldn't want to put undue  pressure on the                                                               
department to extend a loan that was bad.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  FATE   agreed  it   warranted  discussion.     He                                                               
recounted a personal experience that  made him familiar with what                                                               
can happen when these loans occur.                                                                                              
CO-CHAIR   MASEK  referred   to  backup   in  the   bill  packet.                                                               
Currently, she said,  DCED is unable to refinance  loans from the                                                               
Fisheries  Enhancement  Revolving  Loan  Fund  for  the  hatchery                                                               
system; similarly,  prior to  1993, loans from  the other  fund -                                                               
the  Commercial Fisheries  Revolving  Loan Fund  -  could not  be                                                               
refinanced.  This change [provides]  that the hatcheries would be                                                               
asking for  comparable changes for  their industry,  resulting in                                                               
more  fish to  commercial and  sports fishermen,  she read.   She                                                               
indicated  that  if  HB  368  is enacted,  she  would  like  more                                                               
equality in the expenditure for  sport-catch species for king and                                                               
coho salmon because currently pink  and chum salmon are primarily                                                               
targeted.  She remarked that she'd like it [applied equally].                                                                   
CO-CHAIR MASEK  continued to  read, "Currently,  approximately 40                                                               
percent  of Alaska's  entire salmon  harvest  is enhanced  fish."                                                               
She  continued,  "Salmon are  also  produced  that are  taken  by                                                               
resident  and nonresident  sports fishermen  and utilized  in the                                                               
personal  use  fisheries."   From  that  perspective,  she  said,                                                               
favorable financing  rates would  be a normal  business practice.                                                               
She indicated she  is a cosponsor of HB 368.   She mentioned that                                                               
she would like  to move HB 368 out of  committee because the bill                                                               
could help in all parameters of fishing.                                                                                        
CO-CHAIR SCALZI  said the amount of  fish that goes to  sport and                                                               
personal use  is in excess of  a substantial amount that  is paid                                                               
for  through the  "commercial fisheries  enhancement  pact."   He                                                               
said  it's very  beneficial to  both sport  and personal  use, as                                                               
well as  commercial use,  even though  it's paid  for out  of the                                                               
revenue through the enhancement pact.                                                                                           
Number 1745                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  McGUIRE  moved to  report  CSHB  368(FSH) out  of                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
zero fiscal  note.  There  being no objection, CSHB  368(FSH) was                                                               
moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee.                                                                            
CO-CHAIR  SCALZI  called a  brief  at-ease  at 1:34  p.m.,  which                                                               
lasted until  1:36 p.m.   [He turned  the gavel over  to Co-Chair                                                               
HB 376-FISH & GAME IN NAVIGABLE WATERS                                                                                        
Number 1800                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced  the next order of  business, HOUSE BILL                                                               
NO. 376, "An  Act relating to management of fish  and game in and                                                               
on the navigable waters and submerged lands of Alaska."                                                                         
Number 1815                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  SCOTT OGAN,  Alaska State  Legislature, testified                                                               
via  teleconference as  sponsor of  HB 376.   He  referred to  AS                                                               
16.020.010  and explained  that  the state  had  not assented  to                                                               
federal  control  of  the  Alaska Department  of  Fish  and  Game                                                               
(ADF&G) and those  areas set apart as national  bird and wildlife                                                               
refuges when  Alaska was a  U.S. territory.  He  said legislation                                                               
was  enacted when  Alaska became  a  state.   He said  apparently                                                               
there was a  dispute over control of ADF&G and  those areas:  the                                                               
state  wanted  to say  unequivocally  that  it didn't  assent  to                                                               
control of those  areas.  He indicated it was  his [prior] change                                                               
to have  [AS 16.20.010(a) read,  as found  on page 2,  Section 2,                                                               
subparagraph (B),  of the current  bill]:  "Glacier  Bay National                                                               
Park and  Preserve or  the navigable  waters within  or adjoining                                                               
the park and preserve".                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that a  point of contention is still in                                                               
the courts; moreover,  it's a case the governor  has not dropped,                                                               
asserting state control of the  submerged lands and the resources                                                               
in  Glacier Bay  National Park  and Preserve.   He  recalled that                                                               
there was  a buyout  program in place  after the  [National] Park                                                               
Service (NPS)  decided commercial  fishing boats were  an eyesore                                                               
to the cruise ships there,  although he suggested it was probably                                                               
the  opposite:   people on  cruise ships  look outward  and don't                                                               
realize how obtrusive [their ships]  are.  Commercial fishing was                                                               
deemed an  inappropriate activity in  Glacier Bay, he noted.   He                                                               
mentioned that  the bill was passed  at that time and  was widely                                                               
Number 1992                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN  remarked that  the situation  is interesting                                                               
because the governor didn't pursue  the lawsuit in John v. United                                                             
States [known as the Katie John  case] to the U.S. Supreme Court,                                                             
even though he'd previously said  no governor of any state should                                                               
ever  voluntarily  relinquish  authority   back  to  the  federal                                                               
government,   and   that   he  believed   it   was   his   "clear                                                               
responsibility,  even  in  the  face  of  a  difficult  political                                                               
battle,  to  vigorously defend  this  important  aspect of  state                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN said  the  federal  government, through  the                                                               
reserved  water rights  doctrine,  has taken  over management  of                                                               
subsistence fishing  in state sovereign  waters.  He  referred to                                                               
the Totemoff  case and said  the state supreme  court unanimously                                                             
ruled  that  submerged  land  gives ownership  of  title  to  and                                                               
management powers over lands beneath  navigable waters of Alaska,                                                               
navigable  waters  themselves, and  fish  and  other marine  life                                                               
located  in  Alaska's  navigable  waters.    Moreover,  navigable                                                               
waters are generally  not public lands under  the Alaska National                                                               
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).                                                                                       
Number 2188                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN said  the [federal]  Submerged Lands  Act of                                                               
1953  specifically  gives  the  state  authority  over  fish  and                                                               
animals   in  navigable   waters  and   precludes  [navigational]                                                               
servitude  or  reserved rights  from  being  used to  erode  that                                                               
authority.   He said [navigational] servitude  and reserved water                                                               
rights are not interests to which  title can be held.  He offered                                                               
his understanding  that both servitude and  reserved water rights                                                               
are limited  interests, and  do not  give the  federal government                                                               
power over navigable reserved waters unrelated to those areas.                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN offered  his understanding  that the  Alaska                                                               
Supreme Court is  not bound by decisions of  federal courts other                                                               
than the  U.S. Supreme  Court on  questions of  federal law.   He                                                               
said [the state] has the right  to manage its resources.  He said                                                               
the Submerged Lands  Act was mentioned in the  Statehood Act, and                                                               
it was  mentioned that Alaska  was admitted to [statehood]  on an                                                               
equal  footing with  the rest  of the  states; this  included the                                                               
1953 Submerged  Lands Act,  which gave  to the  states fee-simple                                                               
title  [to]  submerged  lands  and   the  right  to  control  the                                                               
resources  within   those  submerged  lands.     Referring  to  a                                                               
Submerged Lands  Act handout  he'd provided,  Representative Ogan                                                               
read  from  a portion  that  said,  "...  the U.S.  releases  and                                                               
relinquishes to the states all  rights, title and interest it may                                                               
have,  unless  otherwise  reserved, in  lands,  improvements  and                                                               
natural resources beneath or within the navigable waters".                                                                      
Number 2269                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN  mentioned a  case  in  which [U.S.  Supreme                                                               
Court] Justice  Sandra Day  O'Connor wrote that  the state  has a                                                               
right to  control fishing.   He explained  that Section 1  [of HB
376]  has  a [number]  of  legislative  findings; Section  2,  in                                                               
addition to the  other areas, says [the state]  doesn't assent to                                                               
federal  control and  lists the  navigable  waters and  submerged                                                               
lands; and Section 3 talks  about various findings and recognizes                                                               
that the  state hasn't assented  to federal control and  that the                                                               
federal government  cannot commandeer the lawmaking  processes of                                                               
the state  to compel  the state  to enact  and enforce  a federal                                                               
regulatory program.   Indicating there is case law  from the U.S.                                                               
Supreme  Court,  he  said  this section  also  mentions  that  it                                                               
doesn't prohibit  the agency  or an agent  from taking  an action                                                               
necessary  to protect  life or  property,  commenting on  federal                                                               
statutes or  regulations, or  participating and  cooperating with                                                               
the established programs.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN,  in  response  to  Representative  McGuire,                                                               
clarified  that the  bill adds  a  new subsection  in Section  3;                                                               
however,  it  doesn't  change  Title   16  on  those  other  four                                                               
[paragraphs in AS  16.20.010(b)].  Aside from  Section 2, nothing                                                               
eliminates existing statute.                                                                                                    
Number 2491                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KAPSNER mentioned  the constitutional  mandate to                                                               
manage for sustained yield.   She asked Representative Ogan if he                                                               
thought it irresponsible to prohibit  state managers from working                                                               
with federal managers.                                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the problem  is that the [state] doesn't                                                               
have the  ability to manage  those resources for  subsistence use                                                               
because the  [federal government]  has taken over.   He  said the                                                               
federal  government doesn't  have an  obligation to  manage on  a                                                               
sustained  yield  [basis], and  prior  to  statehood the  federal                                                               
government didn't manage  for sustained yield.   He indicated the                                                               
federal government would be prohibited  from compelling the state                                                               
to enact and enforce a  federal regulatory program.  He mentioned                                                               
that he thought ADF&G had  a clear responsibility to [monitor the                                                               
federal  government's management  of  resources].   He  suggested                                                               
ADF&G can  comment on proposed federal  statutes and regulations.                                                               
He  added, "It  just  is saying  that we  don't  assent to  their                                                               
control; it's a matter of fundamental state sovereignty."                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  KAPSNER offered  her  understanding that  federal                                                               
law preempts any state law, across the board.                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN  replied  that federal  law  didn't  preempt                                                               
state law;  furthermore, it  gave the state  the right  to manage                                                               
its  resources.   Moreover,  he  said  the Alaska  Supreme  Court                                                               
unanimously agreed  to that  position in  the Totemoff  case, and                                                             
there  is a  mandate from  the  [Alaska] Supreme  Court that  the                                                               
state,  not   the  federal  government,  manage   its  resources.                                                               
Representative Ogan  said the [Alaska] Supreme  Court has [ruled]                                                               
that the  state is not  obligated to  follow any court  ruling on                                                               
the issue other than [from] the  United States Supreme Court.  He                                                               
said when the  governor decided to "cede  sovereign authority" to                                                               
the federal government [by not  pursuing the lawsuit], he ignored                                                               
the  constitution,  the  state's sovereignty,  and  the  [Alaska]                                                               
Supreme Court.                                                                                                                  
Number 2666                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA asked  if the  goal is  to regain  state                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN  said, "Sure."   He mentioned  the governor's                                                               
statements about not voluntarily  relinquishing authority and why                                                               
he had to appeal the case.                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested the  state should be monitoring                                                               
and participating  [with the  federal government's  management of                                                               
resources]  to  get  as  much   information  as  possible.    She                                                               
expressed concern that the bill might limit that ability.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN   said  he  didn't  believe   that  was  the                                                               
intention of HB 376.  The bill  would allow the state to have its                                                               
biologists  [monitor]   the  federal  [government],   comment  on                                                               
proposed  federal statutes  and regulations,  and still  fund the                                                               
positions.    Representative Ogan  acknowledged  that  HB 376  is                                                               
basically posturing  until the  matter is settled  in court.   He                                                               
pointed out that this had been done [regarding] Glacier Bay.                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   KERTTULA  reiterated   her  concern   about  the                                                               
language of HB 376.                                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  KAPSNER pointed  out  that Representative  Ogan's                                                               
answer to  a previous question  had made  it sound as  though the                                                               
reason the state  has federal management is  because the governor                                                               
didn't  appeal  the  Katie John  case.    Representative  Kapsner                                                               
suggested the  reason the state has  federal management, however,                                                               
is  because the  state has  failed to  comply with  ANILCA.   The                                                               
federal  government allowed  the  state three  moratoriums so  it                                                               
could  come into  compliance, but  the  legislature refused,  she                                                               
recalled.  She  mentioned a legislative remedy of  putting a vote                                                               
to the public to change  the constitution to come into compliance                                                               
with  ANILCA.   She said  the court  is not  the solution  to the                                                               
subsistence [issue].                                                                                                            
Number 2836                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to the  Totemoff case, which he said                                                             
[found]  that navigable  waters  are generally  not public  lands                                                               
under  ANILCA.    He  said   the  Submerged  Lands  Act  of  1953                                                               
specifically  gave  state  authority  over fish  and  animals  in                                                               
navigable waters;  moreover, it mentioned  navigational servitude                                                               
or reserved  rights.   He mentioned  that the  federal government                                                               
has maintained that  it has the right to manage  fish up to three                                                               
miles [from the coastline], which  the Alaska Supreme Court found                                                               
to be  incorrect.  Furthermore,  the Alaska Supreme Court  is not                                                               
bound by decisions of federal  courts other than the U.S. Supreme                                                               
Court on questions of federal law, he suggested.                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN offered his belief  that HB 376 is consistent                                                               
with the Alaska  Supreme Court's ruling.  He  offered his opinion                                                               
that  the  governor's actions  have  made  Alaska a  second-class                                                               
state, not on  equal footing with the other states  of the Union.                                                               
Representative Ogan said 14 other  states had filed amicus curiae                                                               
briefs on  [Alaska's] behalf  in the John  v. United  States suit                                                             
because  they worry  about their  sovereign rights  as states  to                                                               
manage  their resources.   This  sets a  precedent that  goes far                                                               
beyond the State  of Alaska, he said.  He  mentioned remarks from                                                               
[U.S.]  Senator  Murkowski about  appealing  the  John v.  United                                                             
States  case.   Representative  Ogan  again  suggested that  this                                                             
issue  is not  about  subsistence, but  about Alaska's  sovereign                                                               
rights as a state.                                                                                                              
TAPE 02-12 SIDE B                                                                                                               
Number 2990                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE FATE indicated his  reason for cosponsoring HB 376                                                               
was  because  there had  been  no  adjudication by  the  [Alaska]                                                               
Supreme Court in  contract law.  He said the  Submerged Lands Act                                                               
of 1953 is incorporated within  the Statehood Act and the compact                                                               
that  the people  of  Alaska  signed saying  that  compact is  no                                                               
longer  valid.   He  agreed  that  ordinarily congressional  laws                                                               
supersede state  law, but not contract  law.  To get  the [issue]                                                               
adjudicated by  a court of the  land is probably going  to be the                                                               
only  way to  settle the  issue of  the Submerged  Lands Act,  he                                                               
suggested.  He  said the [Submerged Lands Act]  was [related] not                                                               
to  subsistence, but  rather  to the  sovereign  right to  manage                                                               
navigable  waterways.   He indicated  there  hasn't been  harmony                                                               
between the  federal government [and  the state] as  it endeavors                                                               
to manage a state waterway and [ADF&G].                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN  mentioned  that   he  thought  the  federal                                                               
government didn't honor the deals made at statehood.                                                                            
Number 2842                                                                                                                     
DICK  BISHOP,   Alaska  Outdoor  Council  (AOC),   testified  via                                                               
teleconference,  informing the  committee  that  AOC supports  HB
376.    Moreover,  he  said  AOC  believes  it  is  important  to                                                               
reemphasize   what  the   Alaska   Supreme   Court  has   already                                                               
enunciated:   the  state's authority  over  navigable waters  and                                                               
submerged  lands, and  the management  of resources  found there.                                                               
He said  AOC appreciates the  recognition of the  state's public-                                                               
trust  responsibility for  renewable  resources.   However,  it's                                                               
also important to  ensure that the state, in its  efforts to be a                                                               
good  neighbor and  to ensure  sound  conservation of  resources,                                                               
does not contribute to the  perception of federal authority where                                                               
none  exists,  he  said.   This  bill  addresses  that  potential                                                               
problem while also citing federal  laws that authorize legitimate                                                               
federal authority.   Therefore, AOC  urges the passage of  HB 376                                                               
to  ensure  the  authorities  are  clear  and  that  the  state's                                                               
authority and responsibility is clear and is followed, he said.                                                                 
MR.  BISHOP   told  members  he   doesn't  believe   federal  law                                                               
supersedes state  law in all  cases.  There are  limitations that                                                               
vary from federal  law to federal law; for example,  it has often                                                               
been cited  that the federal government  has management authority                                                               
for fish  and game on  public lands through the  property clause,                                                               
but  that's   not  necessarily  the  case   unless  Congress  has                                                               
specifically said  that should be  the case.  Another  example is                                                               
that nowhere in  ANILCA was that specific authority  given to the                                                               
federal  government by  Congress; consequently,  that's still  an                                                               
open question, even though it  has not been adequately pursued in                                                               
court, he told members.                                                                                                         
Number 2703                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Bishop if  he was aware of the case                                                               
of New  York v. United States.   He read from  the case [original                                                             
text provided]:                                                                                                                 
     This  case  instead  concerns the  circumstances  under                                                                    
     which  Congress may  use the  States  as implements  of                                                                    
     regulation;  that is,  whether Congress  may direct  or                                                                    
     otherwise  motivate   the  States  to  regulate   in  a                                                                    
     particular field or  a particular way.   Our cases have                                                                    
     established a few principles  that guide our resolution                                                                    
     of the issue.   As an initial matter,  Congress may not                                                                    
     simply "commandee[r]  the legislative processes  of the                                                                    
     States  by  directly  compelling   them  to  enact  and                                                                    
     enforce  a  federal  regulatory  program."    Hodel  v.                                                                    
     Virginia Surface Mining &  Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452                                                                    
     U.S. 264, 288 (1981).                                                                                                      
MR. BISHOP  indicated he wasn't familiar  with the aforementioned                                                               
case.   He said it's  very reassuring that there  are limitations                                                               
on the  reach of the  federal government in compelling  states to                                                               
do things they might not otherwise be  willing to do.  He said it                                                               
is a  good example that the  federal government does not,  in all                                                               
cases, have the  option of preempting the state's  authority.  He                                                               
mentioned  that  ownership,  authority,  and  responsibility  for                                                               
management of  navigable waters have  been granted to  the states                                                               
and upheld until  the circumstances in Alaska.   Mr. Bishop spoke                                                               
about   limitations  and   lack  of   clarity  on   the  relative                                                               
authorities of  federal and state  governments in  the management                                                               
of fish and wildlife and renewable resources in the state.                                                                      
Number 2565                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR  MASEK mentioned  the Submerged  Lands Act.   She  spoke                                                               
about the  intent of  Congress, the appeal  to the  Ninth Circuit                                                               
Court, and the impact on the state.   She asked if [HB 376] would                                                               
clear up [the issue].                                                                                                           
MR. BISHOP  said he thought  it would clear  it up by  laying out                                                               
the  matters of  law and  the relative  authorities; however,  it                                                               
won't clear  up what authority the  state will be able  to retain                                                               
and  what  authority  the  federal  government  will  attempt  to                                                               
assume.  What the federal  government assumes and what it chooses                                                               
to  do  under  the  [John   v.  United  States]  ruling  will  be                                                             
consistent  with the  ruling, he  said.   He  indicated that  the                                                               
federal  government  is not  going  to  subside in  its  position                                                               
because of the passage of HB  376.  It is an important expression                                                               
of a  recognition of the  state's sovereignty with regard  to the                                                               
ownership,  authority, and  responsibility over  navigable waters                                                               
and submerged lands, he concluded.                                                                                              
Number 2463                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR MASEK  referred to a  set of documents in  the committee                                                               
packet, the first page of  which was headed, "Alaska Digest Email                                                               
News; September  3-9, 2001; Murkowski Laments  State Decision Not                                                               
To Appeal 9th  Circuit Case."  She offered  an excerpt attributed                                                               
to U.S. Senator Murkowski, which read:                                                                                          
     "Even  if  we  succeed   in  passing  a  constitutional                                                                    
     amendment   to  protect   subsistence  and   solve  the                                                                    
     subsistence problem,  which I  have supported  and will                                                                    
     continue  to work  for, Alaskans  will not  be afforded                                                                    
     the chance to recover  control over state waters, which                                                                    
     the Governor has chosen to give away."                                                                                     
MR. BISHOP offered  his belief that if the state  were to adopt a                                                               
rural  subsistence-priority  amendment  in its  constitution,  it                                                               
wouldn't  solve  the dilemma  relating  to  state sovereignty  in                                                               
navigable waters.  Moreover, it  would address the ability of the                                                               
state to assume the responsibility  for administering the federal                                                               
law, but  wouldn't return management  to the State of  Alaska, he                                                               
said.   The state would  be obligated  to implement the  terms of                                                               
federal law, and  the federal court would enforce them.   He said                                                               
that was the  situation that existed from 1986 to  1989, when the                                                               
state was in conformity with the  federal law.  If the state were                                                               
to come into  conformity with the federal  subsistence law [now],                                                               
then  the   same  terms  would  dictate   the  state's  operation                                                               
[regarding] the state's  implementation of that federal  law.  It                                                               
leaves the issue of authority  of the state over navigable waters                                                               
unresolved, he added.                                                                                                           
Number 2314                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA referred  to John  v. United  States and                                                             
offered her  understanding that the  court had said if  the state                                                               
followed  ANILCA and  changed the  state  constitution, then  the                                                               
state would regain jurisdiction over navigable waters.                                                                          
MR.  BISHOP  said  he  didn't  recall  that  particular  passage.                                                               
However, if that  was [the case], then perhaps the  issue is that                                                               
the state would be able to  implement the federal law with regard                                                               
to the regulation  of subsistence uses.   It wouldn't necessarily                                                               
affect  the  state's  options  or   autonomy  in  deciding  other                                                               
questions with  regard to the  use of navigable waters,  he said.                                                               
He  asked how  it would  relate to  timber harvests,  tourism, or                                                               
mining,  for example.    Mr.  Bishop said  if  those are  federal                                                               
reserved  waters  and the  authority  of  the federal  government                                                               
remains unchallenged, then the federal  policies would prevail on                                                               
what  can  and cannot  be  done,  regardless  of what  the  state                                                               
thinks.  If  the rural priority [were] in  the constitution, then                                                               
the   state  would   be  compelled   to  administer   subsistence                                                               
regulations consistent with federal law, he said.                                                                               
Number 2212                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR  MASEK   mentioned  the  issue  of   judicial  oversight                                                               
extending toward the navigable waters.                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  referred to page  704 of John  v. United                                                             
States.   She  reiterated  her  point that  the  court said  [the                                                             
state]  could resume  management  of subsistence  uses on  public                                                               
lands including  navigable waters.   She added [referring  to the                                                               
Katie John case]:                                                                                                               
     It never  reached any  of the other  issues, and  ... I                                                                    
     think that this  is segueing over into some  kind of an                                                                    
     argument  that just  doesn't exist  anymore.   ... This                                                                    
     was a  subsistence case;  it's a  subsistence argument.                                                                    
     The court may  have reached somewhat to  get there, but                                                                    
     that's what it concerns.   So, just from my standpoint,                                                                    
     I am not  as concerned, as we seem to  be building this                                                                    
     concern up about other issues.                                                                                             
Number 2161                                                                                                                     
MR.  BISHOP said  he  couldn't  disagree more.    He offered  his                                                               
belief that  clearly the federal jurisdiction  on reserved waters                                                               
under  the John  v. United  States decision  goes far  beyond the                                                             
issue of  the provision  for subsistence  uses.   Furthermore, he                                                               
suggested,  the court  failed to  recognize that  in making  that                                                               
statement, and doesn't  have a clue about what is  or isn't state                                                               
management.   When [the  court] said  fish and  game [management]                                                               
would return to the state, that  is simply not the case; it's not                                                               
atypical of the Ninth Circuit Court  to make that kind of leap in                                                               
logic, he contended.                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the Ninth  Circuit Court can say what it                                                               
wants, but the [Alaska] Supreme  Court said [Alaska] is not bound                                                               
by those decisions.  He  mentioned that reserved water rights are                                                               
precluded from being  used to erode that authority,  and that the                                                               
[Alaska] Supreme  Court cannot  be ignored.   He added,  "We have                                                               
this authority, and that's all this bill does."                                                                                 
Number 1999                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR  MASEK  indicated  HB  376 would  be  held  for  further                                                               
HB 382-CLEANUP OF ILLEGAL DRUG SITES                                                                                          
Number 1982                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced  the next order of  business, HOUSE BILL                                                               
NO. 382, "An Act relating to  the evaluation and cleanup of sites                                                               
where certain  controlled substances  may have  been manufactured                                                               
or stored."                                                                                                                     
Number 1971                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRETCHEN GUESS,  Alaska State Legislature, sponsor                                                               
of  HB  382,  told  the  committee that  when  an  illegal  [drug                                                               
manufacturing] laboratory  is raided  in Alaska,  law enforcement                                                               
sends the  residential property  owner notice  [of the  raid] and                                                               
removes major contaminants  [from the site].   However, there are                                                               
no guidelines  or any direction  for the [property] owner  on how                                                               
to clean  up the  site before  [another tenant]  moves in  or the                                                               
[property] is sold.  There is  no penalty if the [property owner]                                                               
decides to  repaint the walls  and rent the property  rather than                                                               
clean it  up.  She  said there are responsible  [property] owners                                                               
who  want to  clean  up the  sites, but  the  state doesn't  have                                                               
guidelines set  forth.  However,  other [property]  owners aren't                                                               
so responsible and  rent the site, even though  there could still                                                               
be [drug  residue] on the  walls and  in the carpet,  which could                                                               
pose a health hazard to [an occupant].                                                                                          
Number 1798                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS  turned attention to  Section 2 and  said it                                                               
would  provide direction  regarding  the cleanup  of an  [illegal                                                               
drug]  site.    The  law  enforcement  agency  would  notify  the                                                               
property  owner  and  the  department, and  the  owner  would  be                                                               
provided with guidelines for cleaning up the site.                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS pointed out that  the [cleanup] would be the                                                               
responsibility of the property owner,  and the state wouldn't pay                                                               
any part of that.  The bill stipulates  that if the site is to be                                                               
used for residential  purposes, then it must be cleaned  up.  She                                                               
said the  [property] owner has  the choice  not to clean  up, but                                                               
the site cannot be occupied or sold until it is done.                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS turned attention  to [proposed AS 46.03.510]                                                               
and said the property has to  be determined fit for use before it                                                               
can be transferred, sold, leased, or  rented.  Also, it makes any                                                               
current contracts on  the property voidable, but  it doesn't make                                                               
any past contracts voidable, so  a mortgage would still be valid,                                                               
for example.  Property can be  sold if written disclosure is made                                                               
to the prospective transferee or  purchaser that the property has                                                               
been  determined to  be an  illegal drug  manufacturing site  and                                                               
hasn't been  determined to be  fit for use.   Furthermore, [under                                                               
subsection (c)]  a person who  knowingly uses,  transfers, sells,                                                               
leases,  rents, or  occupies  property of  [in  violation of  the                                                               
section] is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA referred  to  page 3,  lines 21-23,  and                                                               
asked  why the  disclosure doesn't  accompany the  transfer of  a                                                               
sale document.                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS deferred to Nathan Johnson.                                                                                
Number 1650                                                                                                                     
NATHAN JOHNSON,  Staff to  Representative Gretchen  Guess, Alaska                                                               
State   Legislature,   answered   that   the   reason   for   the                                                               
aforementioned  provision  is because  of  concern  in the  real-                                                               
estate  community about  having  the disclosure  recorded.   That                                                               
would  create  a  [permanent]  record,  which  some  people  find                                                               
objectionable.   He  said  that  was an  effort  to appease  that                                                               
CO-CHAIR  MASEK remarked  that if  the  property owner  complied,                                                               
then it wouldn't be necessary [to record the disclosure].                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  GUESS  offered  that   if  [the  disclosure]  was                                                               
recorded, it would be a [permanent] record.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  asked if sale  of the property  would be                                                               
permitted if the  property wasn't cleaned up.   She also inquired                                                               
whether there would still be protection for the buyer.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  GUESS answered  in the  affirmative.   She turned                                                               
attention to [proposed  AS 45.03.520] and said  the Department of                                                               
Environmental Conservation  (DEC) would establish  procedures for                                                               
testing the property and establish  a list of laboratories in the                                                               
state that have  the capacity to perform  the testing procedures.                                                               
This is to ensure that the  property owner uses a laboratory that                                                               
can perform the appropriate testing of the property.                                                                            
Number 1455                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE   GUESS   brought   attention  to   [proposed   AS                                                               
46.03.530]  and mentioned  the  four  substances [lead,  mercury,                                                               
methamphetamines, and volatile organic  compounds] that are known                                                               
to cause health hazards, and  that the department would set forth                                                               
in regulation  the levels  required to  be met  for [determining]                                                               
fitness.   She  said this  was put  into regulation,  rather than                                                               
into statute,  because science constantly changes  regarding what                                                               
levels are  appropriate.  She  mentioned concerns that  there are                                                               
many more  chemicals which are  harmful, and that there's  not an                                                               
easy way for those to be [included] in regulation or statute.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS  highlighted [proposed  AS 46.03.540].   She                                                               
told members  it is important  that the guidelines  are followed,                                                               
not only  so the [site]  is safely cleaned  up, but also  so that                                                               
the hazardous material  is disposed of correctly.   She mentioned                                                               
that disposal has been more of a problem than anything else.                                                                    
Number 1358                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS turned attention  to [proposed AS 46.03.550]                                                               
and indicated the  determination would be made  by the department                                                               
regarding whether  a property would be  fit for use if  the owner                                                               
had submitted  satisfactory evidence  to the department  that the                                                               
property  was  cleaned  up  according  to  the  guidelines,  that                                                               
testing had been performed, and  that it had been determined that                                                               
the chemical levels meet the requirements.                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE   GUESS   brought   attention  to   [proposed   AS                                                               
46.03.560] and  indicated the  section sets  forth the  number of                                                               
days from  the time the  property owner receives notice  that the                                                               
owner  has to  comply.   Regarding [proposed  AS 46.03.570],  she                                                               
indicated the  section sets  forth the  duties of  the department                                                               
and regulations.                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GUESS mentioned  an outline  that highlights  the                                                               
general  impacts  of the  illegal  [manufacturing]  labs and  the                                                               
health  [risks]  involved,  especially  in  regard  to  lead  and                                                               
mercury.   She addressed questions that  she'd received regarding                                                               
HB 382.   The first question  asked was why the  [property owner]                                                               
isn't [required] to clean up the  [site] if the owner isn't going                                                               
to  [rent or  sell] it.    Her response  was that  the levels  of                                                               
[hazardous  chemicals]  are  harmful  if  there  is  an  occupant                                                               
[living in the  site], but not if  it is vacant.   She added that                                                               
it  seemed  "overreaching"  to tell  the  [property  owner]  that                                                               
he/she had to  [clean up the site  if it was vacant].   She added                                                               
that there is no disclosure [required] at this time.                                                                            
Number 1281                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS  said there  were lots  of questions  on why                                                               
DEC [would be the administering  department].  She explained that                                                               
in states  with similar statutes,  the responsible  department is                                                               
usually health  and social services.   However, it would  be more                                                               
expensive to  have [a  department other  than DEC  administer the                                                               
provision]  because  DEC  already   has  the  equipment  and  the                                                               
procedures in place.  The fiscal  note reflects a cost of $10,000                                                               
to  [initiate  the  program]  and $2,000  a  year  [in  expenses]                                                               
thereafter.  She added that  putting the responsibility with [the                                                               
Department  of Health  and Social  Services  (DHSS)] "would  have                                                               
been a whole new position  and department, which didn't seem very                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS  reported that  Oregon and  Washington State                                                               
have [addressed this issue].   Washington [State] is finding that                                                               
it should have [addressed] this at  a state level [rather than] a                                                               
local level.   Alaska has many small communities,  she noted, and                                                               
[it doesn't  make sense]  to force the  local government  to have                                                               
the expertise; it is more efficiently done at a state level.                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GUESS highlighted  letters  of  support from  the                                                               
Anchorage  Police  Department,  the Alaska  State  Troopers,  and                                                               
[municipalities].  She mentioned  that Alaska State Troopers have                                                               
been put  in the position of  telling a property owner  there has                                                               
been an illegal [manufacturing] site,  but they haven't been able                                                               
to direct the owner anywhere to ensure the site is cleaned up.                                                                  
Number 1130                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  McGUIRE asked  if  there is  any  recourse for  a                                                               
[property owner]  to civilly  recover the  [cost] of  cleaning up                                                               
the site.                                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  GUESS answered  that  she  hadn't addressed  that                                                               
issue.  She  said her intent was that the  option should be open.                                                               
She   said   she   doesn't   think   it   is   the   government's                                                               
responsibility; it's  the [owner's] responsibility because  it is                                                               
that person's property.  She said  it is costly to test and clean                                                               
up, and  that she has  no problem with [recovering  those] costs.                                                               
She  mentioned  that   she  is  unsure  whether   [a  method  for                                                               
recovering costs]  should be included  in the bill, but  said she                                                               
is  willing  to look  into  it  and  ensure  that the  option  is                                                               
Number 0959                                                                                                                     
MR. JOHNSON  suggested that almost  every existing  housing lease                                                               
would cover  that situation and  give the [property  owner] civil                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE agreed that  most leases would [provide an                                                               
avenue] for  civil recourse.   She said, however, she  would like                                                               
to have a  specific right of action in the  bill for the property                                                               
owner to recover those actual fees and costs that incur.                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE  GUESS  indicated  she would  address  the  [cost-                                                               
recovery] issue.                                                                                                                
Number 0860                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked if the bill  was in the current committee -                                                               
rather  than  the House  Health,  Education  and Social  Services                                                               
Standing  Committee -  because DEC  would  be the  [administering                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS answered in the affirmative.                                                                               
Number 0800                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KAPSNER requested  an estimate  of the  number of                                                               
[illegal manufacturing] labs located in rural Alaska.                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS  referred the  question to the  Alaska State                                                               
Troopers.   She mentioned that  the [illegal  manufacturing labs]                                                               
are   a  problem   in  Anchorage;   because  of   aggressive  law                                                               
enforcement efforts in that area,  the labs are moving toward the                                                               
Matanuska-Susitna  area and  Kenai.   She said  according to  the                                                               
Alaska State  Troopers, there  are some labs  in Ketchikan.   She                                                               
referred  to  the chemicals  involved  in  illegal labs  and  the                                                               
transportation  needed.   Fortunately, she  said, there  have not                                                               
been [illegal  labs] found in  rural Alaska.  She  also mentioned                                                               
that there would  be additional costs for the testing  to be done                                                               
in rural areas.                                                                                                                 
CO-CHAIR MASEK  referred to an  article from the  Frontiersman in                                                             
Wasilla, dated  February 15, 2002,  which said  Palmer's district                                                               
attorney  office has  received  54  new "meth"  [methamphetamine]                                                               
cases to prosecute  this quarter, compared to  Anchorage's 57 new                                                               
cases for the same period.   She indicated the problem is growing                                                               
in that region.                                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE   KAPSNER    mentioned   a   case    involving   a                                                               
[methamphetamine] lab found in Juneau in  a duplex.  She said the                                                               
neighboring tenants' infant  had experienced [increased] sickness                                                               
[during that  time].   She asked  what the  recourse was  for the                                                               
parent  of  a  young  child who  has  sustained  health  problems                                                               
because of a methamphetamine lab.                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  GUESS   offered  her  understanding   that  there                                                               
wouldn't  be recourse  under  HB 382  because  it only  addresses                                                               
cleanup of the site.  She asked  [Mr. Johnson]:  If there were an                                                               
illegal  manufacturing lab  in  a duplex,  could  the other  side                                                               
still be rented out?                                                                                                            
Number 0583                                                                                                                     
MR. JOHNSON  answered that it would  be at the discretion  of the                                                               
police  officers involved,  depending on  the heating  system; if                                                               
there was a  forced air system, for example,  the chemicals could                                                               
be spread  throughout the entire  duplex.  Mr. Johnson  also said                                                               
that in terms of recourse, HB  382 does address it.  He mentioned                                                               
that  other states  have worked  on  legislation specifically  to                                                               
address [illegal manufacturing labs']  effects on children and to                                                               
increase  penalties,   which  could   be  considered   in  future                                                               
Number 0534                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  FATE  referred  to  AS 46.03.530  and  asked  why                                                               
asbestos wasn't included in the [bill].                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS indicated asbestos  isn't a chemical used in                                                               
manufacturing illegal drugs.                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said  asbestos is used when there  is a large                                                               
amount of heat in a  specific area; although asbestos hasn't been                                                               
used  in quite  some time,  it is  readily available.   Moreover,                                                               
asbestos used in those labs  is usually secondhand, which is more                                                               
dangerous, he suggested.                                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS deferred to Mr. Johnson.                                                                                   
MR. JOHNSON  said none of  the other  states [HB 382  was modeled                                                               
after] had a problem with  asbestos at methamphetamine lab sites.                                                               
He added that although it might  exist at some sites, this [issue                                                               
addressed  in  the  bill]  relates to  specific  things  used  in                                                               
methamphetamine labs only,  because "we don't want  people ... to                                                               
feel as though, as we come for  a drug lab, that we're looking to                                                               
address other shortcomings of their property."                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  GUESS  referred  back  to  Representative  Fate's                                                               
question.   She  said the  [specific language]  referring to  the                                                               
four substances [was  included] because those are  the known four                                                               
[substances used in  drug labs].  She indicated  her two proposed                                                               
solutions  [for   later  changes  as  more   information  becomes                                                               
available] were these:   to simply give DEC the  authority to add                                                               
in regulation  other substances known  to be harmful; or  to have                                                               
the legislature, after  a year, evaluate whether  there should be                                                               
a change  [in statute reflecting such  regulations implemented by                                                               
the  DEC].   She  said  she  had  amendments  drawn up  for  both                                                               
scenarios.   She  told Representative  Fate the  problem is  that                                                               
there  could be  other  things  that are  used  but which  aren't                                                               
specified in the bill, "and we need to grapple with that."                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said  asbestos is not general  and is illegal                                                               
to have  in a public facility.   It is not  cumulative like lead,                                                               
[which is  included in the bill],  he said.  He  offered his view                                                               
that asbestos is much more dangerous  than lead.  He indicated he                                                               
would like asbestos to be added to the statute.                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS  indicated she  wouldn't object  to amending                                                               
HB 382 to include asbestos.                                                                                                     
Number 0201                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS  mentioned that  [HB 382] is  not intended                                                               
to  correct conditions  in homes  that haven't  had illegal  drug                                                               
manufacturing.   He  offered  his view  that  there are  probably                                                               
rules elsewhere which require that homes be safe.                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  FATE offered  his  belief  that usually  asbestos                                                               
isn't found in the home; it  is brought in for protection against                                                               
the high [temperature] necessary to manufacture [drugs].                                                                        
Number 0077                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  CHENAULT  mentioned   that  older-style  linoleum                                                               
found in some homes is laced with  asbestos.  He also said he has                                                               
concerns   that  some   of  the   aforementioned  chemicals   are                                                               
potentially more  dangerous than  the four [substances  listed in                                                               
the statute].   He suggested that  the scope of the  bill be kept                                                               
to a methamphetamine [lab] scenario.                                                                                            
CO-CHAIR MASEK  remarked that she  thought the [bill's  scope was                                                               
being broadened] too much.                                                                                                      
TAPE 02-13, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE FATE proposed a conceptual  amendment, to have the                                                               
language  read, "any  harmful  chemical  or substance  associated                                                               
with methamphetamine production".                                                                                               
MR. JOHNSON  suggested "clandestine"  lab, because  although this                                                               
legislation largely  addresses meth  labs, other [drug  labs need                                                               
to  be included].    He  said the  two  amendments [mentioned  by                                                               
Representative  Guess]  would  open  up  the  issue  for  DEC  to                                                               
consider and add chemicals and substances in the future.                                                                        
CO-CHAIR MASEK  referred to  page 4  [lines 14-21],  standard for                                                               
determining  fitness, and  said it  was spelled  out clearly  and                                                               
didn't require  more items to be  added.  What is  already listed                                                               
should  deal  with  the  bill's  intent,  to  ensure  that  these                                                               
chemicals are  going to  be cleaned  up and  taken away,  so that                                                               
whether it's  a house or  an apartment,  it would be  cleaned up,                                                               
ready,  and   safe  for  someone   to  rent.    She   asked  that                                                               
Representative [Fate] withdraw his [conceptual amendment].                                                                      
Number 0275                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  FATE  indicated   the  conceptual  amendment  was                                                               
Number 0304                                                                                                                     
JULIA GRIMES,  Lieutenant, Alaska  State Troopers,  testified via                                                               
teleconference  in  support of  HB  382.   She  said  clandestine                                                               
methamphetamine labs are a dangerous  problem all over the United                                                               
States and, as  with every drug trend, have reached  Alaska.  Law                                                               
enforcement in  Alaska has  heeded the  experiences of  states in                                                               
the  Northwest and  Midwest, taking  an aggressive  stance toward                                                               
detection and eradication of meth  labs, and prosecuting suspects                                                               
found to be associated with them.   She explained that because of                                                               
that aggressive stance,  the number in the state  dropped from 50                                                               
labs in  year 2000 to 21  labs in year 2001,  based on statistics                                                               
from the annual drug report.                                                                                                    
MS. GRIMES said detecting, eradicating,  and prosecution are only                                                               
a part  of the [solution];  she feels [Alaska] has  an obligation                                                               
to be equally aggressive in  evaluating how harmful the sites are                                                               
once they are vacated by  law enforcement officers and to protect                                                               
the  health of  innocent  [people] seeking  [a  residence].   She                                                               
said,  "We would  just support  this bill,  and see  it as  being                                                               
another  aggressive  and progressive  way  to  keep from  getting                                                               
behind the eight ball, if you  will, in a problem that can easily                                                               
overrun an area, and a dangerous problem."                                                                                      
Number 0526                                                                                                                     
TIM  ROGERS,  Legislative  Program Coordinator,  Municipality  of                                                               
Anchorage, testified  via teleconference.  He  told the committee                                                               
[illegal  manufacturing laboratories]  are an  increasing problem                                                               
throughout  Alaska that  needs  to  be addressed.    He said  the                                                               
belief is  that [HB 382]  sets up a  very good process  to ensure                                                               
that properties are made safe  for future tenants.  Despite added                                                               
cost to  rental property owners, he  said the belief is  that the                                                               
safety of  the future  definitely outweighs the  added cost.   He                                                               
concluded, "We commend this bill to you for passage."                                                                           
Number 0597                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE FATE  asked if  lead and mercury  are part  of the                                                               
manufacturing process of these [types of] drugs.                                                                                
Number 0605                                                                                                                     
KURT  KORNCHUCK, Detective,  Anchorage  Police Department  (APD),                                                               
via  teleconference, answered  that  mercuric  chloride and  lead                                                               
acetate are essential ingredients  in a process for manufacturing                                                               
methamphetamine.   He mentioned that  asbestos is used  in large-                                                               
scale drug  manufacturing labs,  but hasn't  been seen  in Alaska                                                               
since  1996.   Most of  the heating  is done  on small,  portable                                                               
electric burners  with glassware,  rather than  a commercial-type                                                               
reaction vessel.                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked  if a [property owner]  would be forced                                                               
to strip the  walls if lead were  found on them..   He also asked                                                               
whether  the background  level is  taken into  consideration with                                                               
regard t the lead.                                                                                                              
MR. KORNCHUCK said  the [question] falls beyond  [APD's] level of                                                               
expertise.  He added:                                                                                                           
     We're  very  thankful for  this  kind  of bill  because                                                                    
     we're a  little frustrated when  we go in.   Of course,                                                                    
     we're wearing  all of  the protective  gear, protective                                                                    
     suits, breathing  apparatus, rubber boots,  and gloves.                                                                    
     And when  we leave, we  simply notify the  landlord and                                                                    
     post the property.                                                                                                         
MR. KORNCHUCK  said he  didn't know  what the  testing procedures                                                               
entail.   He mentioned that  [illegal drug  labs] are a  very big                                                               
problem.  He  said when he'd worked on  [enforcement relating to]                                                               
clandestine  laboratories   in  California,  some   local  health                                                               
departments  would come  out [to  the site]  and take  samples so                                                               
they could  have an  idea of the  manufacturing process  and what                                                               
they should look for  when they went back in, to  give a piece of                                                               
property a clean bill of health.                                                                                                
Number 0810                                                                                                                     
MR.  KORNCHUCK   concluded  by  saying  HB   382  is  outstanding                                                               
legislation  that he  was very  surprised and  happy to  see come                                                               
forth.   He  said  [HB  382] provides  a  tremendous benefit  for                                                               
people with children who unknowingly rent [these sites].                                                                        
CO-CHAIR  MASEK asked  whether the  law enforcement  officers who                                                               
[raid]  meth labs  are in  the [federal  Drug Enforcement  Agency                                                               
MR.  KORNCHUCK   answered  that  specialized,   trained  officers                                                               
including  state troopers,  local  police  officers, and  federal                                                               
investigators go  through one-week  training in which  they learn                                                               
industrial-hygiene techniques,  proper use of equipment,  what to                                                               
look for, and  how to be safe.   Only those who  are certified to                                                               
enter clandestine  drug laboratories  are allowed  to participate                                                               
in the  raids and  the cleanup  process.   In addition,  a highly                                                               
specialized group  of individuals in  the state get  together for                                                               
annual  certification every  year  and talk  about  the new  drug                                                               
CO-CHAIR  MASEK  remarked  that Section  2  requires  testing  of                                                               
property before  continued use if  a law enforcement  officer has                                                               
determined that  the property was  an illegal  drug manufacturing                                                               
or storage site.                                                                                                                
Number 1021                                                                                                                     
JANICE  ADAIR,   Director,  Division  of   Environmental  Health,                                                               
Department   of   Environmental   Conservation,   testified   via                                                               
teleconference,  relating  her  understanding  that  there  is  a                                                               
possibility of false  positives for lead and mercury.   There are                                                               
guidelines   for   laboratories   to  use   to   recognize   that                                                               
possibility, she said.                                                                                                          
Number 1087                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS offered Amendment 1, which read:                                                                           
    Page   4,   line   22-24,   following   "Sec.46.03.540.                                                                     
     Decontamination requirements.  (a)  If"                                                                                    
        Delete "testing under AS shows the                                                                   
     presence of a substance that exceeds the limits set by                                                                 
     regulations adopted under AS 46.03.530 and"                                                                            
     Page 4, line 25, following "property,"                                                                                     
        Insert "for which a notice has been issued under                                                                  
     AS 46.03.500,"                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS  explained that if  property is found  to be                                                               
the site  of an  illegal manufacturing lab,  and if  the property                                                               
owner knows  he/she wants to  clean up the property,  Amendment 1                                                               
would allow  the property  owner to skip  initial testing  of the                                                               
property,  clean   up  the  property   in  accordance   with  the                                                               
guidelines, and then have the  property tested to ensure that the                                                               
standards have been  met.  This would save the  owner the expense                                                               
of testing the property twice.                                                                                                  
Number 1220                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved that the  committee adopt the foregoing                                                               
as  Amendment 1.    There  being no  objection,  Amendment 1  was                                                               
Number 1248                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GUESS   again  addressed   the  subject   of  new                                                               
substances  that might  be used  in  illegal drug  manufacturing.                                                               
She   offered  two   slightly  different   amendments  [discussed                                                               
previously]  that would  broaden the  language in  [AS 46.03.530]                                                               
and  allow the  department to  [periodically] review  information                                                               
related  to   illegal  drug  manufacturing,   identify  hazardous                                                               
substances  used in  the  manufacturing,  and add  [regulations].                                                               
Representative  Guess  mentioned  concern among  law  enforcement                                                               
officers  about limiting  the number  of  substances included  in                                                               
this section.                                                                                                                   
[There was an  at-ease from 3:06 p.m. to 3:08  p.m., during which                                                               
the  two  amendments  mentioned   by  Representative  Guess  were                                                               
CO-CHAIR  MASEK explained  on  the record  that  she thought  the                                                               
amendments were  too broad and  shouldn't be included.   She said                                                               
the bill  already identifies hazardous chemicals  associated with                                                               
illegal  manufacturing laboratories.    She  therefore had  asked                                                               
that the proposed amendments be recalled.                                                                                       
Number 1492                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA began  discussion of conceptual Amendment                                                               
2.  Referring  to page 3, lines 4-7, she  asked what the property                                                               
owner's  recourse would  be when  a  lease is  voided because  of                                                               
illegal  drug manufacturing.   Representative  Kerttula suggested                                                               
amending  paragraph  1,  line  8, to  include  "or  lease"  after                                                               
"promissory note".                                                                                                              
MR. JOHNSON  said it  would be beneficial  because if  the renter                                                               
has a clandestine lab, then  the lease [can be voided]; moreover,                                                               
it  would provide  the  property owner  recourse  for the  voided                                                               
Number 1650                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked why only  the renter would be excluded                                                               
and not the user or lessee.                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  pointed out  that subsection  (b) covers                                                               
the  transfer and  sale.   She  said including  the word  "lease"                                                               
would  probably  cover  [Representative Green's  concern].    She                                                               
indicated  the  amendment should  be  conceptual  so the  correct                                                               
language can be used to provide protection for the landlord.                                                                    
Number 1759                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA   moved  to   adopt  the   foregoing  as                                                               
conceptual  Amendment 2.   There  being no  objection, conceptual                                                               
Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                                                        
Number 1772                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR MASEK turned attention to the  fiscal note for DEC.  She                                                               
gave  a brief  synopsis of  the  fiscal note  expenditures.   She                                                               
indicated  operating  costs would  be  $12,000  for FY  2003  and                                                               
$2,000 per year thereafter.                                                                                                     
Number 1917                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  McGUIRE moved  to  report CSHB  382  [HB 382,  as                                                               
amended]  out of  committee with  individual recommendations  and                                                               
the accompanying  fiscal note.   There  being no  objection, CSHB
382(RES)  was   moved  out  of   the  House   Resources  Standing                                                               
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects