03/08/2004 01:12 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 8, 2004
1:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Nick Stepovich
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Cheryll Heinze, Vice Chair
Representative Beth Kerttula
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 26(RES)
Requesting the United States Department of the Interior and the
United States Department of Justice to appeal the decision of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in The
Wilderness Society v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service
and to seek an emergency stay of the decision pending an appeal
of the decision.
- MOVED CSSJR 26(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 478
"An Act relating to the issuance of commercial fishing interim-
use permits; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 478 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 444
"An Act relating to direct marketing fisheries businesses, to
the fisheries business tax, and to liability for payment of
taxes and assessments on the sale or transfer of fishery
resources; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 444(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 319
"An Act relating to the disposal of state land by lottery; and
relating to the disposal, including sale or lease, of remote
recreational cabin sites."
- MOVED CSHB 319(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SJR 26
SHORT TITLE: SALMON ENHANCEMENT IN WILDERNESS AREAS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WAGONER
02/06/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/04 (S) RES
02/20/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/20/04 (S) Moved CSSJR 26(RES) Out of Committee
02/20/04 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/23/04 (S) RES RPT CS FORTHCOMING 5DP
02/23/04 (S) DP: OGAN, SEEKINS, STEVENS B, WAGONER,
02/23/04 (S) DYSON
02/25/04 (S) RES CS RECEIVED NEW TITLE
02/27/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/27/04 (S) VERSION: CSSJR 26(RES)
03/01/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/01/04 (H) RES
03/08/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 478
SHORT TITLE: COMMERCIAL FISHING INTERIM USE PERMITS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WILSON
02/16/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/04 (H) FSH, RES
02/27/04 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
02/27/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/27/04 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/01/04 (H) FSH AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/01/04 (H) Moved CSHB 478(FSH) Out of Committee
03/01/04 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/03/04 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 5DP 2NR
03/03/04 (H) DP: OGG, HEINZE, WILSON, SAMUELS,
03/03/04 (H) SEATON; NR: GARA, GUTTENBERG
03/08/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 444
SHORT TITLE: DIRECT MARKETING FISHERIES BUSINESS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WILSON
02/09/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/09/04 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
02/18/04 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
02/18/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/18/04 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/25/04 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
02/25/04 (H) Moved CSHB 444(FSH) Out of Committee
02/25/04 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/26/04 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 2DP 3NR
02/26/04 (H) DP: WILSON, SEATON; NR: OGG, SAMUELS,
02/26/04 (H) GUTTENBERG
03/08/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 319
SHORT TITLE: REMOTE REC.CABIN SITE SALES/LOTTERY SALE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FATE
05/14/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/14/03 (H) STA, RES, FIN
01/13/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/13/04 (H) Heard & Held
01/13/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/03/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/03/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/10/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/10/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/10/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/19/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/19/04 (H) Moved CSHB 319(STA) Out of Committee
02/19/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/23/04 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 2DP 4NR 1AM
02/23/04 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, LYNN; NR: SEATON, HOLM,
02/23/04 (H) COGHILL, WEYHRAUCH; AM: BERKOWITZ
03/01/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/01/04 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/04 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/08/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SJR 26.
DON JOHNSON, Member
Kenai River Professional Guide Association (KRPGA)
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 26.
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 478 and HB 444.
JON GOLTZ, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 478, presented
information and answered questions.
IAN FISK, Staff
to Senator Bert Stedman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As staff to the sponsor of the Senate
companion bill, testified to the changes made to CSHB 444(FSH).
KATHY HANSEN, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance (SEAFA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 444.
CHERYL SUTTON, Staff
to the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 444, provided
information and answered questions.
KENNETH DUCKETT, Executive Director
United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 444.
JIM POUND, Staff
to Representative Hugh Fate
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 319, answered
questions on behalf of the bill sponsor, Representative Fate.
NANCY WELCH, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 319, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-13, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:12 p.m. Representatives Masek,
Dahlstrom, Gatto, Lynn, Stepovich, Wolf, and Guttenberg were
present at the call to order.
SJR 26-SALMON ENHANCEMENT IN WILDERNESS AREAS
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 26(RES), Requesting the
United States Department of the Interior and the United States
Department of Justice to appeal the decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in The Wilderness
Society v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service and to seek
an emergency stay of the decision pending an appeal of the
decision.
CO-CHAIR MASEK turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Dahlstrom.
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
sponsor, explained that SJR 26 involves the salmon enhancement
project in Tustumena Lake. On December 30, 2003, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals made the decision that the Tustumena
Lake salmon enhancement project violates the Wilderness Act in
two ways. First, he said the court considered [the Tustumena
Lake salmon enhancement project] to be a commercial enterprise
because commercial fishermen benefit from the project. He said
that's true in a way, but commercial fishermen do not benefit
from this project within the wilderness area. He said the
salmon are planted in Tustumena Lake, "out-migrate," and return
four to five years later.
SENATOR WAGONER said there are three or four different [groups]
of people that benefit because of the fish that are planted,
which are: Commercial fishermen, personal use fishermen, sports
fisherman, and sometimes subsistence fishermen. Noting that
there is a large personal use fishery at the mouth of the
Kasilof River, he said commercial fishermen that benefit are
generally the setnetters who fish on the shore-based nets,
mainly below the Kasilof River. He noted that about 100,000
fish come back from this project. He said the second objection
the court had is that [the enhancement project] might not be
consistent with preserving the natural conditions of the area.
He maintained that [the enhancement project] is consistent, and
said all that would be done through the aquaculture association
is enhance the ability of the [salmon] fry to survive and
return.
Number 0295
SENATOR WAGONER said SJR 26 is requesting that the decision be
appealed and that an emergency stay of the decision be ordered.
He said if the court does not stay the decision, 5 to 6 million
salmon fry are going to be destroyed and disposed of because the
fry cannot be put into another [water] system without going
through the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and
receiving the [necessary] permits. He said it's just about too
late to do that process, and it is very critical to get a stay
if possible. Noting that this project has been in operation for
close to 30 years, he said it started out as a state project and
when the state eliminated FRED [Fisheries Rehabilitation,
Enhancement and Development], it was turned over to the Cook
Inlet Aquaculture Association (CIAA), which has maintained the
project ever since. He said it's a long-term project.
SENATOR WAGONER explained that the reason for requesting the
appeal is backed up by an email contained in the bill packets
from Martin Bushman, Legal Counsel, Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources, who points out the same problems with the court
decision that the State of Alaska does. He said there is a
possibility that with this decision other activities in these
wilderness areas are at risk. He said [activities] such as
taking guided people [into the area] for kayaking or horseback
riding excursions or transporting people into these areas may be
forbidden. He remarked, "We think this is where they're going
with this ... decision."
SENATOR WAGONER said the reason [SJR 26] is being rushed through
is that the keynote speaker at the energy council is going to be
Gail Norton, Secretary of the Interior, and "we would like to
hand her a copy of this resolution while we're back there and go
over it with her," because there's some hesitancy on the
Solicitor General's part to proceed with this suit and the State
of Alaska can't proceed with it.
Number 0492
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated support for the resolution. He
remarked, "To me, it's just another in a series of outrages by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals." He suggested that there is
a history of outrageous decisions from the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals. Representative Lynn said he thought this should
bolster "our attempts" to get Alaska removed from the Ninth
Circuit, so "we don't have outrages like this, and other
outrages from that district." He said he can't understand why
the [salmon] fry can't be put into the lake, because as he
understands it that would not be introducing a new species [of
salmon]. He remarked, "It's just enhancing what God put there
to begin with."
SENATOR WAGONER said CIAA's director, a representative of the
Wilderness Society, and another conservation group had a meeting
in Anchorage and realized that this was a problem, and asked
that this be allowed. However, he said since the court decision
has already been made, there is no way that this can be done
without a stay of the court decision. He said it is not that
simple to say a mistake was made, ask for it to be rectified,
and have the enhancement [project] continue for at least this
one cycle. That's kind of where it stands right now, he noted.
Number 0668
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if there was someone from ACV [Alaska
Conservation Voters] or the Wilderness Society available to
testify.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM indicated that there was not.
Number 0684
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH asked if the state's [federal]
delegation supports this resolution.
SENATOR WAGONER replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH asked who is going to present the
resolution.
SENATOR WAGONER said he and Senator Scott Ogan would present it
to [Gail Norton].
Number 0733
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked if CIAA has quantified an impact of
the damage that was caused two years ago when the [flood]
occurred at Tustumena [Lake]. He asked how it has impacted the
natural [salmon] run.
SENATOR WAGONER said it may have, but he had not been given that
information. He explained that there was a tremendous amount of
damage done to the spawning area on the upper end of the
Tustumena system. Senator Wagoner remarked, "Generally, that's
what the people would argue; ... that's nature's way, and let
happen whatever happen." He suggested that the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals is generally overruled about 85 percent of the
time. Senator Wagoner said if "we" can get this appealed to the
U.S. Supreme Court, then "we'll" have a good record.
Number 0831
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said [language] on page 2 "talks
about" the contribution to the lives and activities of the
residents on the Kenai River and of the hardships. He asked if
there is quantitative number on the loss of economic
opportunity, such as how many fish are lost.
SENATOR WAGONER remarked:
It's about 100,000 red salmon .... These are early
... return fish; they're primarily a beach caught
fish. ... At fifty cents a pound, times four or five
pounds, ... let's say they're a five-pound average,
that 's two and a half dollars times 100,000. It just
depends on where you want to stop on the economic
chain. ... You can say that turns over four times
into the community or two times.
SENATOR WAGONER said it's an indeterminable number, but it's
part of the overall economic part of the fishery. He said a
substantial number of those [fish] are caught in the personal
use fishery, which takes place for several days at the mouth of
the Kasilof River. He said a lot of people take part in that
fishery.
Number 0921
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked how long the stay would have to
be in order to release the fish from the hatchery into the lake.
SENATOR WAGONER said any stay would have to run past the end of
June. He said the [salmon fry] are loaded into a float plane
near Seward and flown directly over and deposited into the
Tustumena Lake, which probably happens in June.
Number 0980
DON JOHNSON, Member, Kenai River Professional Guide Association
(KRPGA), testified. He said KRPGA is opposed to SJR 26, and
although [KRPGA] is basically against most of the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals decisions, it tends to go along with this
decision. He said there have been a lot of general problems
with stocking in Tustumena Lake. Mr. Johnson said there are a
few parts of the [resolution] that appear to be pure
misinformation, for example, he said the part about commercial
activities. He said he went through the Wilderness Act and
didn't see that kind of thing in it, in fact, there are a few
clauses in there that specifically exempt that stuff. He said
the actual statements that are coming out and saying this
attempt of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is aimed at going
after tourism, kayaking, guiding, outfitting, and that kind of
thing is not seen in the Wilderness Act.
MR. JOHNSON said apparently there are a bunch of people that
want these fish to go into the [Tustumena Lake] and are trying
to use misinformation "in order to keep it there." Mr. Johnson
said if those people want to keep it there on their own merits,
but are trying to drag a bunch of other things into it to
somehow justify getting this case appealed again, is not what
"we're really looking to do." He said [the resolution] makes it
look like there is 100 percent agreement to get the case
appealed, but "we don't see it." Mr. Johnson said there have
been a lot of problems up there with the planning of fish, and
it is not particularly in the same area as the "wilderness
people are going with this thing." He suggested that a lot of
the people who are trying to keep that project going are using
what he sees as misinformation to dilute what is going on in the
Wilderness Act "to say that it's doing something and it's not."
Mr. Johnson said unless someone is going to come up with
specifics and point it out and say exactly what it is going to
do, he can't see it "doing that." He said he was referencing
sections "4(d)(1) and 4(d)(6)" of the Wilderness Act, which both
specifically allow aircraft, motorboats, kayaking, recreational
commercial activities, and so forth.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF said he believes the entire Kenai Peninsula
delegation understands the impacts that have taken place with
the flood and the slide, which impacted the systems draining
into the Tustumena Lake. He said his concern is that what is
being talked about is an event that took place by "mother
nature" that has decimated part of the salmon run. He said now
"we're" having the court system do the same thing by not
allowing the CIAA to deposit the [salmon fry] into the lake;
"we're" affecting an economy twice - the commercial fishery,
sport fishery, personal use fishery, and subsistence [fishery].
Representative Wolf said "we" can't do anything about mother
nature, but "we" can do something about the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals. He stated his support.
Number 1256
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Mr. Johnson about the definition of
the words "commercial enterprise".
MR. JOHNSON said he believed that was in the Wilderness Act.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Mr. Johnson if he knew the
definition.
MR. JOHNSON indicated he didn't.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said it is an important term as far as the
[resolution] is concerned. He said he thought it was of real
value to establish ahead of time what those two words actually
mean. He said if this language is going to be referred to in
some of the supporting documents, he thinks it is pretty
valuable to him to know exactly what it means. Representative
Gatto suggested that something as simple as taking a relative
who is not a resident of the state on a trip in the state is a
minor form of some sort of a commercial enterprise. He said if
he operates a business, that is a major form of a commercial
enterprise. Representative Gatto asked if there is a dividing
line, so that he can understand [what actions] violate the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals ruling or the Wilderness Act or
anything else.
MR. JOHNSON said section "4(d)(6)" [of the Wilderness Act]
specifically allows commercial services. He remarked, "You can
read whatever you want into that."
Number 1368
SENATOR WAGONER said he believes the commercial enterprise
referred to in this bill takes place outside of the entire
wilderness area, which is one of the problems, and the other
commercial enterprise referred to takes place inside the area.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked Mr. Johnson if there is a
problem mixing hatchery fish with wild stock in that area.
MR. JOHNSON said absolutely; a big problem. He said when those
hatchery fish are dropped into the Tustumena Lake and mix with
the wild fish, it produces a massive effort in Cook Inlet with
gillnetters who basically end up intercepting every wild fish
that could possibly be trying to get into the system on the
Kasilof River, which runs out of Tustumena [Lake]. He said
every time "stock fish" are thrown into a system that flows out
into saltwater, it causes an extra increased effort [to harvest
the fish] by gillnetters, and that extra effort actually comes
down to taking a disproportionate amount of fish. He said if
more stock fish come back than wild fish, it will [produce] an
extra effort to harvest the stock fish, [because] in the process
of trying to harvest the stock fish, a higher percentage of the
wild fish are going to be taken.
MR. JOHNSON said after years of doing that, it degrades the wild
stock down to nothing and results in nothing but stock fish,
which have been planted there year after year. He said that's
been going on in the Tustumena drainage and is the real problem
up there. He said it's been going on for quite a while and
"we've" been trying to get the program shut down just for that
reason, because it's been hard on the wild stock. He said it is
one of the major reasons "we've" not tried to put any
"stockings" into the Kenai River because "we" don't want to
damage any of the genetics of the stocks that are in the Kenai
River. He said the Tustumena Lake [enhancement project] has
been going on for such a long time that it's been very hard to
do anything about it. He said it is most of the reason for
addressing the resolution at this time, and the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals has come in and put the "shut down" on this
[project] for wilderness reasons.
MR. JOHNSON said it is the "wild factor" that's really got this
thing going for [KRPGA], because it does not [want] the wild
fish wiped out for a bunch of [stocked fish]. He said this is
even bigger than what was suggested. He said when a bunch of
fish are stocked in the Kasilof River, it causes extra effort at
the mouth of the Kasilof River, which impacts the Kenai River,
and that's a huge issue.
Number 1550
SENATOR WAGONER said these fish are genetically exactly the
same. He explained that the egg take for these fish takes place
in Tustumena Lake; the eggs are taken, fertilized, taken to the
hatchery, hatched, and fed. He said those fish have a better
survival rate by far than those in the wild. Senator Wagoner
said there is genetically no difference between a salmon that's
reared for the first two years in the hatchery versus the wild.
He stated that the genetic strain is exactly the same. He
turned attention to the last paragraph of a letter in the bill
packet from Attorney General Gregg Renkes, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
If allowed to stand, the Ninth Circuit's decision may
be used to burden or eliminate legitimate non-
commercial activities in wilderness that Congress
never meant to bar. We urge you to take action to
correct the Ninth Circuit's overreaching. Please let
me know if we can be of any other assistance or
support.
SENATOR WAGONER said to keep in mind that the director of this
wilderness area had no problem with this fish stocking effort.
He remarked, "We even won, until it was appealed, on a 2 to 1
vote at the Ninth Circuit Court." He said it is a matter of
keeping it going to a higher court, which is what's been
happening. Senator Wagoner remarked, "Every place else, the
decision's been in favor of Cook Inlet Aquaculture
[Association]."
Number 1668
CO-CHAIR MASEK moved to report [CSSJR 26(RES)] out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes, and asked for unanimous consent. There being no
objection, CSSJR 26(RES) was reported from the House Resources
Standing Committee.
HB 478-COMMERCIAL FISHING INTERIM USE PERMITS
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 478, "An Act relating to the issuance of
commercial fishing interim-use permits; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 1715
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as sponsor, explained that HB 478 provides for an issuance of a
commercial fishing interim-use permit. The Alaska Court of
Appeals recently held that the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC) lacked the authority to issue the interim-use
permits (IUP) in fisheries that it doesn't have the authority to
limit. This bill is a house keeping measure that clarifies that
CFEC does indeed have the authority to issue interim-use permits
in these fisheries. She said this clarification is consistent
with the original intent and purpose of the current statute,
which has been in use for 30 years.
Number 1793
FRANK HOMAN, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC), testified. He explained that HB 478 is a measure to
clarify that CFEC does have the authority to issue interim-use
permits for fisheries that it may never limit, which has been
the practice for 30 years, since the beginning of the program.
He said Assistant Attorney General John Goltz is handling this
appeal in the courts. He explained that three halibut fishermen
came in from the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to sell fish in
Alaska and did not have a permit from the State of Alaska to
sell those fish. Those fishermen were cited and the case went
to court. In the court's reading of the original statute, it
took a very narrow reading to say if CFEC could not limit a
fishery, it could not issue an interim-use permit. He said CFEC
only issues two permits, which are entry permits and interim-use
permits. Every fishery that is not limited gets an IUP to
authorize it to fish or to have fish in state waters. He
remarked:
Their narrow reading of the original language, it said
"pending the establishment" of a maximum number.
Pending the establishment means ... we had not limited
the fishery, where it says "maximum number," you can
just put a parenthesis around that and say "a
limitation" because ... when we establish a maximum
number, that means we limited the fishery.
"Pending" means we may never do it, and there's some
fisheries, probably, we will ... never do. So, we've
always understood that broadly, and the [Alaska] Court
of Appeals understood it narrowly. ... The Department
of Law (DOL) has appealed this decision to the Alaska
Supreme Court to clarify that the original intent was
to issue interim-use permits in any fishery that was
not limited.
That's in the court now, and this clarification, as
Mr. Goltz may testify, will help in his presentation
to say that the legislature really did mean that they
could issue interim-use permits from the very
beginning, so that's in essence ... what the bill
says.
Number 1988
CO-CHAIR MASEK said the bill is very straightforward and is a
"housekeeping" bill to ensure that the language is consistent
with the intent of the original statute. She said as many
members know from experience, sometimes the legislature has to
go back and do housekeeping. She said she would like to move
this bill forward.
Number 2004
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if this bill is retroactive.
MR. HOMAN replied no. The purpose of the initial bill was to
change the language of the bill to clarify that the CFEC did
have the authority to issue the IUP, which it has done for 30
years. He said the House Special Committee on Fisheries added
the retroactivity section to further support DOL in its appeal,
by saying the legislature understands and authorizes that CFEC
has always had that ability. He said the retroactivity was
included to support that position, but he thought the attorney
would say that it probably won't have a major impact. He said
[the legislature] couldn't go back 30 years and change laws, but
it does give the "flavor" of the legislature as far as its
opinion of this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that this is very hard for him.
He remarked, "Somebody wants to say something's retroactive 30-
plus years, and you're saying we're only talking about the
flavor, well, I think maybe we can talk about the flavor without
putting it into statute ...."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if this was a part of the original
bill or if it was an amendment.
MR. HOMAN said an amendment was added in the House Special
Committee on Fisheries to show legislative support for the
state's position.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said this is a 31-year retroactivity clause
and "anyone would raise their eyebrows as to anything
retroactive," but 31 years is a generation backwards. He asked
if it is imperative that the [retroactivity clause be included]
or whether it is just to add some flavor to the bill. He said
he is not in favor of usually adding flavor to a statute. He
asked Mr. Goltz to comment about how valuable or important it is
to be retroactive.
Number 2126
JON GOLTZ, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, testified. Mr.
Goltz said he understands there to be two purposes for the
retroactivity provision that was added in the House Special
Committee on Fisheries. He explained that the first reason is
to essentially ratify the interpretation and the application
that CFEC had adhered to the statute since it first started
issuing interim use and entry permits in 1974. Mr. Goltz said
CFEC has always interpreted this statute, as it currently
exists, to essentially mean that it has the authority to issue
IUPs in every Alaskan fishery that has not been limited. He
said a narrower reading was reached by the Alaska Court of
Appeals that creates some question about whether the
interpretation and application CFEC has been giving the statute
has been incorrect in other instances, and it raised the concern
about potential suits against the state arguing that CFEC has
issued permits and therefore requires permit fees in instances
where it lacks the statutory authority. He said that has
actually come to pass and there have been two class action suits
that have been filed on the basis of the holding of the [Alaska]
Court of Appeals decision asking for reimbursement of fees that
the fishermen paid for IUPs.
Number 2271
MR. GOLTZ said the feeling of the House Special Committee on
Fisheries members who supported the amendment was that the
retroactivity provision would help give further assurance of
protection and ensure that interpretation of the current statute
by the [Alaska] Court of Appeals was not for the use to subject
the state for liability in other instances. He explained that
the other purpose for the retroactivity provision, as he
understands it, is to provide any additional arguments that
might be made available to the state in the context of the
currently filed court cases. He said there's supposed to be a
criminal case that the [Alaska] Court of Appeals has ruled on
that has been appealed to the supreme court, but it is still in
court and has not been decided yet, in addition to the two class
action cases that he'd mentioned.
MR. GOLTZ said the [House Special Committee on Fisheries] seemed
to understand that there would be some potential constitutional
restrictions on whether or not this change, if adopted by the
legislature, could be applied retroactively in those cases that
are already in progress. He said he testified before the House
Special Committee on Fisheries that there would be some strong
arguments he thought he could make on the basis of a retroactive
bill to show that the CFEC has had the authority to issue these
permits all along. Mr. Goltz said even though there was some
question about whether that would ultimately prevail in the
courts (indisc.) that could be worthwhile arguments for him.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO remarked:
With the understanding that the criminal case
currently before the supreme court, and the potential
for reimbursement of past fees paid, and retroactivity
might not be allowed in all cases, I have to tell you
that short of some compelling reason and absolute
necessity for retroactivity of 31 years, I find that
section of this bill very difficult to support.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Mr. Goltz if he would agree or
disagree.
MR. GOLTZ said in his view the retroactivity provision in this
bill is not problematic because the bill is essentially
conforming the language of the statute to the way the current
statute has always been interpreted and applied by state
agencies. He said to the best of his reading of the legislative
history of the bill, it is also consistent with what the intent
of the legislature has been since this language was initially
adopted in 1973. Mr. Goltz said with that understanding, he
didn't think that any new requirements or provision is being
added retroactively by this bill. He said it is essentially a
clarifying amendment in the sense that it ratifies the
interpretation that's always been given to the statute in the
past. Mr. Goltz said it is also a curative in the sense that it
is made in response to and disapproval of the [Ninth Circuit]
Court of Appeals decision. He said the arguments that he is
making on behalf of the state to the supreme court are that the
current statute essentially means what this bill better
expresses, so in light of that he doesn't think there is any new
requirement being imposed retroactively by this bill.
Number 2373
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked how that would change anything. He
remarked, "If we say today, this is what we firmly believe is
true and what was intended by the past, that still holds whether
or not we make it retroactive to the past, doesn't it?"
MR. GOLTZ said he would agree that there is an issue there and
there are some arguments that could be made on both sides about
the extent to which this legislature could do anything to change
what a previous legislature meant when it adopted a statute. He
said he thought the effect that that would have in the
application of the law in any particular instance would best be
decided by the court. He said he didn't feel like he could
express the wishes about what would be resolved in every
possible circumstance.
Number 2503
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked Mr. Goltz if the retroactive clause
would cost the state any money.
MR. GOLTZ said he thought there was a reasonable basis for the
decision that was made to apply this retroactively, which is to
essentially ratify the interpretation that's been given to
(indisc.) historically. Mr. Goltz said he does recognize that
there are some instances in which the application of it
retroactively could be problematic constitutionally. He said
this bill would initially present that it was intended simply to
give CFEC the ability to continue to apply the law the way it
always has in the past, not withstanding the [Ninth Circuit]
Court of Appeals decision, but to the extent that this
legislature can apply the law retroactively to basically remove
the lack of authority that might be argued for the issuance of
other permits. Mr. Goltz said he thought it was a reasonable
thing to do, although he recognized that there can be some
dispute about the applicability of that.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF suggested there would be a fiscal note.
MR. GOLTZ disagreed. He said he was not aware how this bill,
even applied retroactively, would cause any appropriations to be
made.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked if the retroactive clause was going to
"feed the fire" of the class action lawsuits.
MR. GOLTZ said in his judgment it would not.
Number 2641
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if it would "damper the fire" of
the lawsuits.
MR. GOLTZ said arguably yes, but he was not sure that it was
going to have a strong effect one way or the other, but if it
had any effect, it would be to discourage anybody seeking to
bring a claim making the argument that CFEC lacks the authority
to issue permits in the past. He said because the retroactive
provision would allow DOL to argue that, if that were true under
a previous version of the law, that was effectively cured by the
retroactive adoption of that authority in order to bring a
wording of the statute into line with the practice and the
intent all along.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said the courts are going to rule on
the original lawsuit as it is. He asked how much weight the
courts are going to place on this bill with the retroactive date
on those current standing cases.
MR. GOLTZ said he didn't know for sure. He said because he is
the person who is advocating on behalf of the state in these
cases he is not in a good position to make that argument in a
strong fashion, because it would essentially run counter to the
goal he is serving for the state.
Number 2736
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if changing it to be retroactive would
make it effective as of 30 years ago and if the court would have
to base it upon the bill with it being retroactive.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked if the original version of the bill did
not include the language adding the uncodified law by amending
the new section for retroactivity. She asked Representative
Wilson to comment on how and why it was necessary to add that.
She said she thought there is a general feeling from committee
members that they might be more comfortable in adopting the
original version.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said the intent of the legislation itself
was for clarification, and the [uncodified law] was added
because of Mr. Goltz's testimony that there were some class
action lawsuits ready to happen because of this. She said the
amount of the permit is $150 and she thought the fishermen were
probably not going to gain from that, but the attorneys probably
would. She said [the committee] thought that the there might be
a possibility that it would help the class action lawsuit. She
said she was not "locked in" to that part of it, but it could be
a possibility that it might help.
Number 2841
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to report HB 478 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 478 was reported from the
House Resources Standing Committee.
HB 444-DIRECT MARKETING FISHERIES BUSINESS
[Contains discussion of SB 286, the companion bill.]
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 444, "An Act relating to direct
marketing fisheries businesses, to the fisheries business tax,
and to liability for payment of taxes and assessments on the
sale or transfer of fishery resources; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 444(FSH).]
Number 2890
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as sponsor, explained that HB 444 is about a fisheries business
tax (FBT) and how that tax relates to a sector of the commercial
fishing industry known as direct marketing fisheries businesses.
She said in 1913, when the territory of Alaska decided to gain
revenue for the fishing industry, this tax was put into place.
It is the oldest tax in Alaska and was levied on processing
companies. The percentage was 3 percent on shore-based
processors and 5 percent on floating-fisheries processors. She
said the floating businesses are primarily large mobile
processing facilities, and are assessed at a higher rate to
compensate for the fact that they do not operate like a shore-
based plant does. This bill focuses on a group of fishing
businesses that do not fit the old definition of the FBT. She
explained that this bill is a companion bill to SB 286, and is a
bill that took years of negotiations between the industry and
government. She said the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task
Force endorses this bill unanimously. She said the bill is
about fairness and "leveling the playing field."
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked for a brief overview of the changes made to
CSHB 444(FSH).
TAPE 04-13, SIDE B
Number 2990
IAN FISK, Staff to Senator Bert Stedman, Alaska State
Legislature, testified. [Senator Stedman was sponsor of the SB
286, the companion bill.] Speaking to changes made in CSHB
444(FSH), he turned attention to page 4, line 5, and he said the
word "unprocessed" was added into the language as a
clarification to ensure that the [tax] is on the unprocessed
value [of the catch]. He explained that one of the things this
bill does is it clarifies the value of fish that direct
marketing fisheries are supposed to pay tax on. Mr. Fisk said
the bill changes the tax rate for direct marketers from 5
percent to 3 percent because in existing law many of the direct
market fisheries businesses who do processing on board are
basically considered to be the same as floating fisheries
business. He clarified that these are small vessels.
Number 2912
MR. FISK explained that this is the oldest tax in the state and
as it has evolved over the years, it hasn't really made a
distinction between small boat vessels, which do some processing
on board, and large floating processors, which are basically
floating canning lines. He said this is a fair distinction to
make for small boats that are operating out of Alaskan towns.
He said the bill changes the point of taxation; the "raw fish
tax" - the nickname for fisheries business tax - is applied to
the raw fishery resource as it's delivered to a processor, which
is the way a vast majority of fish are delivered, and is kind of
the first point of sale. Mr. Fisk said the point that one is
taxed on in the direct market business is often a retail point
of sale, so [the bill] rectifies that problem, and provides
fairness and a level playing field. He said [the bill]
rectifies the due dates for all taxes that a direct market
business would pay to April 1. There are a few other taxes that
the businesses have to pay if handling salmon such as a hatchery
and marketing tax. He said instead of paying the taxes monthly,
it would be paid once a year, which makes it easier for small
businesses to do the bookkeeping.
MR. FISK said [the bill] is a tightly woven compromise [that
resulted] from the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force
process. He said the definition of a "direct market vessel" is
[a vessel] that is 65 feet or under, which made some of the
larger processors more comfortable with the bill, and it applies
only to the product that is caught and marketed by the
fisherman. He said a direct market vessel can't buy product
from other vessels. Mr. Fisk explained that the Department of
Revenue (DOR) will be revenue neutral to the state because there
are some provisions of the bill that bring in better compliance
with the FBT and close a few loopholes on certain types of
direct market vessels.
MR. FISK said this bill is helping out small Alaskan businesses
and because of current market conditions fishermen are losing
their markets and don't have any other options but to try to
sell their own product. He suggested the bill would help small
Alaskan businesses. Mr. Fisk noted that this is a compromised
bill that a lot of work had been put into. He urged the
committee to pass the bill.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked Mr. Fisk to comment on the $25,000 that
is going to come out of the general fund.
MR. FISK said the requested position for DOR is the only fiscal
impact that this bill will have. He said the point is to give
DOR the extra ability to check the compliance with the tax.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked Mr. Fisk if he anticipated one
additional position in 2006 and two positions in 2007. She
noted that the [amount of funding requested in the fiscal note]
doubles in 2007.
MR. FISK said he is not certain why there is a difference [in
funding] between the two years. He said he thought it was
because there won't really be any tax returns for the department
to go over for the first part of the [2006] fiscal year, and it
wouldn't be until the middle or the end of the year. He said in
the long run, [DOR] will end up with a $50,000 estimate every
year.
Number 2745
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked about the definition of unprocessed
[fish].
MR. FISK said in some cases a troller can gut and gill a fish,
which is kind of the industry standard for trollers, and the
fish is not considered processed.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said a fish can be finned, gutted, and it
remains unprocessed because the flesh is not exposed to air. He
said he wanted to ensure that was clear to the committee because
it wasn't clear to him. Representative Gatto noted that the
head of the fish has to stay on otherwise the flesh would be
exposed.
Number 2666
KATHY HANSEN, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermen's
Alliance (SEAFA), testified. Ms. Hansen said [HB 444] is a
compromised bill that's been worked through in a public process
for over two years through the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry
Task Force; it has agency support, processor support, and
industry support. She noted that direct marketers had testified
in other committees but it is the time of year when most of them
have started to go back out fishing and aren't available. Ms.
Hansen urged the committee to pass the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if a [fisherman] can buy fish from
others.
MS. HANSEN said a fisherman cannot buy fish from others and be a
direct marketer.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if a fisherman can carry another
fisherman's fish into [town] to save that person a trip.
MS. HANSEN said she would have to take a look at the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game's [ADF&G] transporter bills to see if
a fisherman can carry in another fisherman's unprocessed fish.
She said she did not know the answer.
Number 2597
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if this bill allows fishermen to
get together and form a co-op or a processing conglomeration.
MS. HANSEN said "roundaboutly" that is permissible under current
state law. She said those activities can still be done even
with this legislation passing. Ms. Hansen remarked:
They'll have to go back to the current laws that are
in statute right now and meet those definitions of ...
what requirements they'll have to meet for DEC
[Department of Environmental Conservation] processing
standards [and] what requirements they'll have to meet
for Department of Revenue.
MS. HANSEN said it can still be done, but not as a direct
marketer dealing with one's own product.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if fishermen will be paying 5 percent
instead of 3 percent.
MS. HANSEN answered in the affirmative.
Number 2546
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF noted that the committee had heard a
transporter bill last year. He asked if one boat can haul in
several other fishermen's unprocessed fish.
MS. HANSEN said without looking at the transporter bill she
didn't remember if there were any restrictions on whether the
fish had to be processed or unprocessed and she could not answer
the question.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he specifically remembered hearing
that bill in committee last year, which [allowed one boat to
haul several fishermen's fish into town]. He said
Representative Gatto [brought attention to the question] of at
what point does it become a co-op, and he said he didn't know
that the question was ever addressed.
Number 2463
CHERYL SUTTON, Staff to the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry
Task Force, Alaska State Legislature, testified. She said the
transporter bill that was passed last year only created the
opportunity for harvesters to offload unprocessed fish onto
another vessel that acted as a transporting vessel to a
processing plant or a point on land. Ms. Sutton remarked:
This bill has nothing to do with transporting anyone's
processed fish .... It does not increase any of that
activity; it's a direct marketer, they're responsible
for their own vessel. They fall under a set of rules
that are very stringent and very well defined, and if
you get into any kind of a processing activity, and we
dealt very closely with all the processors in the
state on this issue, then you ... come under an entire
set of different regulations, and these folks don't
want to fall under those regulations, they want to do
this activity, try to just expand their own
businesses, and perhaps expand their own personal
incomes by doing direct marketing, and that's the pure
and simple of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he didn't want to pass legislation and
somehow be in conflict [with legislation passed last year]. He
said he thought it was great for a person to sell his or her own
fish. Representative Gatto asked if [the bill] defeats what was
passed last year.
MS. SUTTON said no; the bill passed last year is a totally
separate issue. She said she believed there are only 12 vessels
in the entire state that applied for a transporter permit of
which only 4 vessels were in salmon fisheries, so there wasn't a
huge use of that piece of legislation to this point. She said
the [two bills] do not cross boundaries in any section of the
law. She remarked:
The transporter bill simply would allow me as [a]
fisherman - if I were out on the west side of Cook
Inlet harvesting fish and I'd had no capacity to
offload my fish to a processor, but there was a vessel
that was transporting and he had a transporter license
and I had the proper licensing - he could take my fish
to the east side of the inlet and sell those fish
under my authority, so that they're not mixing the
issues at all.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the fishermen whose fish were
being transported would still retain ownership of his or her
fish.
MS. SUTTON said correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that if the fish were kept
separately, then there would really be no question that the
transporter was simply helping by transporting fish for the
other fishermen. He said if the fish were kept together, he
would have a different question that has to do with whether
"we're overstepping the intent here in saying this is a co-op
now, rather than would you mind carrying my fish for me."
MS. SUTTON said she was going to step back from the issue
because that's a piece of legislation that was passed last year,
is in law, and has absolutely nothing to do with this piece of
legislation. She remarked:
I guess that was the only point I really wanted to
make clear was that ... you were very clear in the
questions that you asked last year about how ... they
would be accountable. They spent considerable time
with the [Alaska] Department of Fish & Game ...
ticketing, ... formatting, and making sure that the
individual's fish were clearly accounted for, ...
registered, and certified, but this is a totally
separate issue. This is a direct marketing bill that
deals with commercial fishing vessels that are under
65 feet, and their regulations are totally different
from the transporter regulations.
Number 2233
KENNETH DUCKETT, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska
Gillnetters (USAG), testified, and he stated that USAG strongly
supports this legislation and has submitted a letter to the
committee expressing its support.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM noted that the next committee of referral is
the House Finance Committee, which will have the opportunity to
view the fiscal note and make determinations [regarding the
fiscal impact of the bill].
Number 2189
CO-CHAIR MASEK moved to report CSHB 444(FSH) out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes, and asked for unanimous consent.
Number 2173
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected for purposes of discussion.
He remarked:
I think Representative Gatto and I have a similar
concern that the salmon task force has come to us with
a series of recommendations and we've passed most of
them. But I think, ... and I don't know how real this
is, but ... certainly a concern ... [of] mine is that
we're changing situations and there are going to be
... new processes. And people are going to be taking
advantage of things that are unseen at this point.
... I support this legislation and I think it does
good things, but ... the more we do of these things,
the more things that are changing and opportunities
are changing and the whole shape of the business, so I
am concerned about that in the long run. I am not a
commercial fishermen but I think the dynamics of the
industry is going to be changing.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF said he had some reservations about HB 444
as well. He indicated that he thought HB 444 ties directly to
the transporter bill passed last year.
Number 2101
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG removed his objection.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked if there was further objection. There
being no objection, CSHB 444(FSH) was reported from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
HB 319-REMOTE REC.CABIN SITE SALES/LOTTERY SALE
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 319, "An Act relating to the disposal of
state land by lottery; and relating to the disposal, including
sale or lease, of remote recreational cabin sites." [Before the
committee was Version S, adopted as a work draft on 3/01/04.]
Number 2067
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Hugh Fate, Alaska State
Legislature, noted that the bill had been previously heard in
committee. He said he was available to answer questions.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM said she had heard some concerns raised about
services that people may or may not request or feel entitled to
in particular areas, such as schools, roads, emergency services,
and so forth.
MR. POUND said there is specific language in existing statute
that deals with that issue and basically says [the state] is not
responsible for those things in remote cabin locations. He said
he didn't have a copy of that section of statute with him.
Number 1970
NANCY WELCH, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), testified. She said the
statute being asked about is AS 38.04.010(b).
The committee took an at-ease from 2:21 p.m. to 2:26 p.m.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked Mr. Pound for clarification on the
issue.
MR. POUND directed attention to AS 38.04.010(b), which read in
part:
State land that is located beyond the range of
existing schools and other necessary public services,
or that is located where development of sources of
employment is improbable, may be made available for
seasonal recreational purposes or for low density
settlement.
The seasonal recreation use or low-density settlement
shall have sufficient separation between residences so
that public services will not be necessary or
expected. The availability of timber, firewood, and
water resources shall be considered in determining
separation between residences.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM said the bill has a rather large fiscal note.
She said the next committee of referral is the House Finance
Committee, and she is confident "that they will go through this
with a fine-tooth comb."
Number 1839
CO-CHAIR MASEK moved to report CSHB 319, Version 23-LS0477\S,
Bullock, 2/25/04, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes, and asked for
unanimous consent.
Number 1818
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected for purposes of discussion. He
called attention to the following language in AS 38.04.010(b):
"The seasonal recreation use or low density settlement shall
have sufficient separation between residences so that public
services will not be necessary or expected." He said he didn't
know how the [legislature] could even determine what would be
expected, and that people always expect things once they are
there. He asked, "Have you ever found a place where people
didn't expect you to stay away or government to come in or
somebody take care of me one way or another?" He stated that
that hasn't happened in his experience.
MR. POUND said he is inclined to say that Representative Gatto
is correct in his assessment, but he believes that this
statutory language does protect the state and ultimately if the
site is within a municipality or borough, that it would also
protect "them" as well.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if it is known or suspected that
that's the situation.
MR. POUND said past experience is that no one in a remote cabin
site has expected to have any support from the state as far as
utilities and/or schools.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if it is clear in the bill or in
regulation that "you sign away your right to having the borough
or the community or somebody establish schools or fire stations
...." He said he can foresee the state getting "hung up pretty
bad" as soon as 10 kids show up and "somebody says I think we
have a right to a high school here."
MR. POUND noted that he had not seen all of the language that is
involved in the state contract. He said the little bit of
contractual language in this bill is correcting some of that
contract and he would suspect that the department would have
that language within its contract.
Number 1674
MS. WELCH directed attention to AS 38.95.300, a disclaimer
applicable to state land disposals, which read:
Except as otherwise specifically provided, nothing in
this title
(1) obligates the state to provide services to
land that is disposed of by the state, or any grantee
of the state, or is the subject of any disposal
program;
(2) limits the authority of the state to dispose
of land or any interest in land or resources in the
area of the current disposal, provides any exclusive
right or interest in the area of the disposal, or
implies or requires that any disposals made will be
limited in type or any other manner.
MS. WELCH said it is a broad exclusion, but it doesn't mean that
people won't come in and ask. She said she believes it gives
the legislature the authority to "go back and say but here's the
law."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked what happens when it conflicts with
existing law that says if a community has 10 children, it is
entitled to a school. He asked if [AS 38.95.300] would
supercede that law or if it would take precedence over previous
law because it was signed into law later.
MS. WELCH said she could not provide legal advice on that
question; it would be something that the legislature would have
to work out. She explained that in past land disposals most
subdivisions have been located close to existing communities, so
the schools expand or adapt according to the type of use that is
occurring there. She said most of the remote parcel program
areas would not see many schools go up in those areas, so she
would assume that it would still be the same.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if there were some that did.
MS. WELCH replied that she did not have first-hand knowledge of
it, but it is "kind of one of those disclaimers."
Number 1537
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO withdrew his objection.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked if there was further objection. There
being no further objection, CSHB 319(RES) was reported from the
House Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:36 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|