Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/25/1997 01:36 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 25, 1997
1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Joe Green
Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8
Urging the United States Congress to give an affirmative expression
of approval to a policy authorizing the state to regulate,
restrict, or prohibit the export of unprocessed logs harvested from
its land and from the land of its political subdivisions and the
University of Alaska.
- MOVED SJR 8 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 28
"An Act repealing the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the
Alaska Coastal Policy Council, and making conforming amendments
because of those repeals."
- HEARD AND ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 8
SHORT TITLE: PRIMARY MFG OF PUBLICLY OWNED TIMBER
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TORGERSON, Pearce, Taylor, Duncan;
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Grussendorf, James
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/23/97 114 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/23/97 115 (S) RESOURCES
02/05/97 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/10/97 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/10/97 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/11/97 282 (S) RES RPT 5DP 1NR
02/11/97 282 (S) DP: GREEN, TAYLOR, TORGERSON, LEMAN,
02/11/97 282 (S) DP: SHARP; NR: LINCOLN
02/11/97 282 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.RES)
02/13/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/13/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/14/97 355 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/14/97
02/14/97 359 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/14/97 359 (S) COSPONSOR(S): TAYLOR
02/14/97 359 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
02/14/97 359 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 8
02/14/97 359 (S) COSPONSOR(S): DUNCAN
02/14/97 359 (S) PASSED Y17 N- E3
02/14/97 361 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/17/97 370 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/17/97 370 (H) RESOURCES
02/17/97 377 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): GRUSSENDORF, JAMES
02/25/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 28
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL COASTAL ZONE MGMT PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT, Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 34 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 35 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 35 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/13/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/13/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/20/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/20/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/22/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/22/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/25/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
MARY JACKSON, Legislative Assistant
to Senator John Torgerson
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 514
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2828
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for SJR 8.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-20, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Hudson, Ogan, Masek, Dyson,
Green and Joule. Representatives Nicholia, Williams and Barnes
arrived at 1:39 p.m., 1:41 p.m. and 1:50 p.m., respectively.
SJR 8 - PRIMARY MFG OF PUBLICLY OWNED TIMBER
Number 0048
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the first order of business was Senate
Joint Resolution No. 8, urging the United States Congress to give
an affirmative expression of approval to a policy authorizing the
state to regulate, restrict, or prohibit the export of unprocessed
logs harvested from its land and from the land of its political
subdivisions and the University of Alaska. He noted that Senator
Torgerson was the prime sponsor.
Number 0096
MARY JACKSON, Legislative Assistant to Senator John Torgerson,
presented the resolution. She said SJR 8 is the same as the
previous year's SJR 37, which had passed both the House and Senate
unanimously. Its premise is simple. At the present time, the
State of Alaska does not have the authority to regulate, restrict
or prohibit the export of its timber, which resulted from a 1984
U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In 1990, the U.S. Congress had
corrected in part that ruling for 11 western states, but that did
not include Alaska. Ms. Jackson said SJR 8 requests the
congressional delegation to look at that issue again, reopen it and
add Alaska to it, so that Alaska can also regulate, restrict or
prohibit its timber resources.
MS. JACKSON said SJR 8 applied to more than just Senator
Torgerson's district. The issue had also been raised in Seward,
where the mill had been shut down. Those logs were being exported,
in one case to another western state that did not even allow its
own logs to be exported to Alaska. Ms. Jackson indicated SJR 8
would allow some economic development. She expressed hope that the
congressional delegation would listen and take action on it.
Number 0259
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE asked where the logs would be processed
and whether Alaska had the facilities to process them.
MS. JACKSON replied, "The premise is that you would have the
ability to restrict or prohibit or regulate. There may be some
areas in Alaska where you want to restrict it. And there may be
some where you just want to regulate it. Obviously, the ones where
you'd want to regulate it are ones where you'd have the ability to
process. The problem and the point right now is we don't have any
of that authority, and this asks Congress to give Alaska that
authority."
CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN commented that in light of severe cutbacks
of timber harvest, especially in the Tongass National Forest, the
least they could do was allow value-added primary manufacturing.
Number 0378
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN made a motion to move SJR 8 from the
committee with individual recommendations. There being no
objection, SJR 8 moved from the House Resources Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON turned the gavel over to Co-Chairman Ogan.
HB 28 - REPEAL COASTAL ZONE MGMT PROGRAM
Number 0435
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the next order of business was House
Bill No. 28, "An Act repealing the Alaska Coastal Management
Program and the Alaska Coastal Policy Council, and making
conforming amendments because of those repeals."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said although no testimony would be taken,
comments could be submitted in writing. He advised that HB 28 was
being assigned to a subcommittee. Following that, further
testimony would be taken before the committee acted on the bill.
Number 0476
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said to provide direction to the subcommittee, he
was seeking members' opinions on whether the program should be
abolished, partially retained or left alone. He appointed
Representatives Green, Joule and Barnes as subcommittee members,
with Representative Green as chairman. He indicated that
Representative Barnes, who was not present, had agreed to serve on
the subcommittee. Co-Chairman Ogan said he himself would play an
active role but not be a member of the subcommittee.
Number 0561
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON indicated upon first hearing HB 28, he agreed
with its intent. However, the more he heard, the more he realized
there were "potential values there that need to be uplifted and
perhaps redesigned." He suggested careful consideration of the
testimony heard thus far. "Perhaps we don't need to necessarily
get rid of something that is working in some fashion but to modify
it so that it works better," he stated. "And if there's some
actions within there that are arbitrary or perhaps excessive, then
those are the types of things that should be gotten out."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON noted that all members were welcome to attend
subcommittee meetings and provide input. He said after the
subcommittee presented its recommendations, perhaps there would be
hearings on those.
Number 0667
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA concurred. She hoped the
subcommittee would contact people who had testified, especially
those familiar with the program, including Diane Mayer, Director of
the Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) in particular.
Number 0726
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether there would be notice for
subcommittee meetings so that communities could follow the process.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the meetings would be noticed. He asked
whether the question was whether the meetings would be
teleconferenced so people could hear.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said either to hear or testify. He expressed
concern that because of the recent shootings in Bethel, at least
one community may have missed out on the process. He suggested
that an opportunity be afforded to provide testimony, even if it
was in writing.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN concurred. However, he was uncertain whether
telecommunications would be possible throughout all the meetings.
Number 0773
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN requested members' comments on their perceptions
thus far, as there had been a lot of testimony but little committee
discussion. He said on the plus side, the program provided
coordination between people applying for permits and government
bureaucracies. It also provided an avenue for local input. He
cautioned that it might be subjective as to how much local input
would remain if the program were abolished.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the Department
of Environmental Conservation (DEC) were already obligated to take
public input on any action they took. He also believed there was
a sense of ownership with committees working in these small
communities and involved in the process.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said on the minus side, it could provide a special
interest group or "somebody with an agenda" the avenue to stop a
project, which perhaps would not happen if just the DNR or another
department took testimony.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said the program put federal money into the
economy. He expressed uncertainty over whether that was a plus.
Although the leverage of that money was nice to have, he believed
the legislature, as policy-setters, needed to get out of the mind-
set of "well, let's just spend X amount so we can get more." He
advised, "Anytime you get any money from the federal government or
any other source, there's strings attached. And so with that
federal money comes federal regulation and federal intervention.
And it's certainly nice for local governments and the local economy
to have some people on staff that are doing these things, but
government shouldn't, in my opinion, be in the position of just
providing jobs for the sake of providing jobs."
Number 0931
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK said the federal government had so
many holdings in the state that when this policy was created, it
actually gave up some sovereign authority. She believed it was
important that state and local governments play a greater role in
development and other issues in their areas. She suggested that
the subcommittee look closely at the permitting process and the
role of the DGC.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said the program offered a greater level of
protection to the public where access concerns arose relating to
large corporate holdings. She believed that should not be thrown
away because of problems in the permitting area of the program.
She offered to work closely with the subcommittee and to follow up
on some of the recommendations as well.
Number 1105
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that although some members thought one
thing when the title came to them, they had changed their minds
after hearing testimony. "You may still want to throw it out," he
said. "But at least you have a better idea of what it does, why it
was instigated." He said many things not yet discussed would be
addressed in the subcommittee, including the intended purpose of
the program and whether it was doing what it was supposed to.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that Alaska has more shoreline
than the rest of the Lower 48 together. Tinkering with the
program, or considering getting rid of it, was a tremendous
undertaking. He stated, "The nation felt that it was a reasonable
thing to do. The way it's handled by the various states varies
considerably."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN believed Alaska may be able to learn from
other states. Compared to other states, Alaska had been restricted
as far as the number of applications coming under the coastal zone
purview. He suggested finding out what tinkering by other states
had not worked out, for example. "And if we find that this was the
thrust and yet we're askew from the rest, maybe it's the way we're
interpreting it," he said. Maybe it would be better to actually
try and make some tweaks within the purview of not losing the whole
program."
Number 1227
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what avenue people would have for input
if the program were abolished. He believed the most onerous
prospect was the potential litigation to stop activities in mid-
stride, as he said occurred with the Northstar project. He
believed dissatisfied individuals would be free, or less inhibited,
to stop projects, whether justified or not. This might happen if
they did not fully understand a project or did not think it had
been fully reviewed before it occurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested the main thing the subcommittee
might accomplish was establishing that area of confidence between
the applicants, the state and federal governments, and those people
affected either directly or indirectly. An example of the latter
was people with an interest in maintaining Alaska's beautiful
coastline. "And so that's a fairly broad amount of people that
we're going to possibly impact," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated, "We may find that the job is bigger
than a subcommittee, or certainly that it's bigger than a
subcommittee over a short period of time. I would hope to come
back to you with a lot more, a litany of things, that we should be
doing, and if we can't resolve those in subcommittee, a charge to
be done over the interim."
Number 1326
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON urged Representative Green to look into the
appeals process to the Alaska Coastal Policy Council. He wondered
whether it moved issues forward in a deliberate fashion and how
much it cost. In addition, he suggested talking to Diane Mayer
about her ideas. He cited an instance of a small contractor in his
district running into large costs in dealing with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. He asked what affect these people had on the
smaller developers.
Number 1417
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that was an excellent concept to
consider. He noted that earlier testimony indicated one agency may
actually overlap into another agency's jurisdiction or be able to
hold up a project, either arbitrarily or a because of feeling a
need for additional information that perhaps no one else in the
regulatory arena would subscribe to.
Number 1456
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES commented that this law was put on the
books around 1977. She said it had not stopped lawsuits nor
prevented people from being anti-development. She believed people
had used this law to stop development of any project they could
find in the coastal areas to stop.
Number 1530
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE questioned whether the mentioned lawsuits had
originated in the areas to be developed or elsewhere. He suggested
that people in coastal areas supported development of the resources
in those areas because of this vehicle to help them reach some
level of comfort about their concerns. "In rural areas, it usually
has to do with subsistence activities," he noted. "And once they
feel those are put to rest, then usually I think they climb on
board."
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to discussion at earlier hearings
about adjacent areas being in and out of the coastal zone. "But
there's that throughout the state," he said. "We have different
game management units throughout this state, as an example where
rules change, depending on where you happen to be inside those
boundaries. Local option laws."
Number 1653
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to earlier testimony about Fort Knox. He
suggested the subcommittee look at that project because, to the
best of his knowledge, Fort Knox got its permits in record time
without oversight by the DGC. He noted that the program enabled
"anti-development folks" to stop a project and said, "There's
already a safety net of agencies that cover these concerns."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that the bottom line, and what they needed
to look at in this committee, was not so much the finance aspects
but whether Alaska's resources would be compromised if this either
was abolished or modified.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN pointed out that the Majority Caucus had an agenda
to reduce the size and scope of state government. He endorsed
looking for programs to eliminate rather than just making cuts.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1770
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 2:06 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|