02/20/2008 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB348 | |
| HJR31 | |
| HB348 | |
| HB330 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 330 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 348 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 20, 2008
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Co-Chair
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Bob Roses
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 348
"An Act relating to the adoption of regulations by the Board of
Game."
- MOVED CSSSHB 348(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31
Opposing the enactment of the Protect America's Wildlife Act of
2007 that intends to prohibit aerial hunting of wildlife, which
is essential for predator control in Alaska.
- MOVED CSHJR 31(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 330
"An Act relating to management of noxious weeds and invasive
plants; establishing the Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Board;
and establishing the noxious weed and invasive plant management
fund."
- MOVED CSHB 330(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 348
SHORT TITLE: BOARD OF GAME REGULATIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLER
01/31/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/31/08 (H) FSH, RES
02/06/08 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
02/06/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/08 (H) RES, FIN
02/13/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/13/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/08 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/20/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HJR 31
SHORT TITLE: OPPOSE FED LAW RE AERIAL HUNTING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLER
01/30/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/30/08 (H) RES
02/13/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/13/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/08 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/20/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 330
SHORT TITLE: NOXIOUS WEEDS AND INVASIVE PLANTS
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
01/17/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/08 (H) RES, FIN
02/11/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/11/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/11/08 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/20/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor of SSHB 348, answered questions
and supported the proposed committee substitute.
JIM POUND, Staff
to Representative Wes Keller
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding the proposed
committee substitute for SSHB 348.
TIM BARRY, Legislative Liaison
Public Communications Director
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding the proposed
committee substitute for SSHB 348.
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor of HJR 31, answered questions
and supported the proposed committee substitute.
JEANNE OSTNES, Staff
to Representative Craig Johnson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the House Resources Standing
Committee, sponsor of HB 330, presented information and answered
questions regarding the proposed committee substitute.
BRYCE WRIGLEY, President
Alaska Farm Bureau
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated he is comfortable with the proposed
committee substitute for HB 330.
PETER FELLMAN, Staff
to Representative John Harris
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding the proposed
committee substitute for HB 330.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:04:13 PM. Representatives
Fairclough, Seaton, Roses, Gatto, and Johnson were present at
the call to order. Representatives Wilson, Guttenberg, Edgmon,
and Kawasaki arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 348-BOARD OF GAME REGULATIONS
1:04:37 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would
be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 348, "An Act relating
to the adoption of regulations by the Board of Game."
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved that the committee adopt as the working
document the proposed committee substitute (CS) for SSHB 348,
labeled 25-LS1328\Resources.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected. He said reintroduction of the
Board of Fisheries into the bill would cause extreme
complications because it would include commercial fisheries and
the potential allocation of assets between those fisheries, as
well as between personal use, sport, and subsistence fisheries.
He said he will maintain his objection unless the bill is
referred to the House Special Committee on Fisheries where this
can be addressed in detail.
1:07:51 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON opposed the objection because four of the seven
members of the House Special Committee on Fisheries also sit on
the House Resources Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the difference is that the House
Special Committee on Fisheries concentrates only on the
fisheries aspects and reintroduction of the Board of Fisheries
into the bill will take study and investigation. The House
Resources Standing Committee has looked solely at game during
its previous hearings on this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON agreed with Representative Seaton. She
asked why an amendment could not be made to strike the Board of
Fisheries from the bill.
1:09:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 348, related his constituents' overwhelming support for HB
348 at a weekend meeting in his district. The Department of Law
and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game assisted in writing the
amendments at his request and gave some level of support, he
said.
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, noted that the new language, including the
reference to the Board of Fisheries, came from Mr. Kevin Saxby
of the Department of Law and is based on language used in two
Alaska Supreme Court decisions: the 1981 Kenai Peninsula
Fishermen's Cooperative Association, Inc. v. State and the 1996
Pullen v. Ulmer. This new language keeps the bill's initial
intent of declaring both game and fish an asset in order to
eliminate management by initiative, he said. However, fish
could be eliminated.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON understood the difference between the proposed
CS and the sponsor substitute to be the addition of "Board of
Fisheries" in the title with no other substance being changed.
The proposed CS would thus be compliant with the supreme court
ruling.
MR. POUND replied correct. However, he noted, there is a
proposal in the committee's packets to change the title from the
proposed CS. In further response to Co-Chair Johnson, Mr. Pound
confirmed the Alaska Supreme Court has already ruled that fish
are an asset. The bill would codify Alaska Supreme Court case
law so it applies to game in the same context as fish.
1:14:42 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO proffered that adding the Board of Fisheries is a
major change.
MR. POUND responded this is what the [Alaska Department of Fish
& Game] and its attorney wanted to do.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what was deleted from the original
bill and why.
MR. POUND said SSHB 348 would provide that game be considered an
asset in regard to Board of Game allocation and management
decisions. Under a loose interpretation of the law that could
be considered appropriation. The bill's purpose is to eliminate
biology management by initiative, and the proposed CS would
accomplish this with fewer words.
1:16:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired whether the Board of Fisheries or
the Alaska Department of Fish & Game would be commenting on the
proposed CS.
MR. POUND replied that Mr. Barry is here from the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she would like assurance that the
commercial fishing industry will not be affected by the proposed
CS because commercial fishing is a big part of her district.
MR. POUND said he had advised the primary people involved with
commercial fish. However, he noted, neither he nor anyone else
has had much time to look at this because he only received the
proposed language at 5:30 p.m. yesterday.
1:17:47 PM
TIM BARRY, Legislative Liaison, Public Communications Director,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, informed the committee that
Mr. Saxby is the person that members need to talk to, but he is
presently testifying at another committee meeting and therefore
unavailable. He said Mr. Saxby instructed him to tell the
committee that the Alaska Department of Fish & Game and the
Department of Law support this new language and that it would
accomplish what the sponsor is attempting to achieve. He could
not say how it would affect the commercial fishing industry
because he had not asked Mr. Saxby that question.
1:19:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked why moose and caribou are not
automatically considered an asset given that fish are considered
an asset.
MR. BARRY understood there was at least one [Alaska] Supreme
Court case involving fish, but there is no similar case
involving game so it has never been explicitly stated by the
court [that game is an asset].
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH added that fish are a commodity that
is sold and traded, which is not the case for caribou and bear.
Thus, fish are monetized differently even though there may be an
in-kind trade of caribou and bear in Alaska which is not
necessarily recognized as an open trade. She said she thinks
fish have been at the forefront of being an asset because they
are a monetized commodity.
1:20:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired whether SSHB 348 designates that
moose, caribou, and bear are assets when before they were not.
MR. BARRY deferred to Mr. Pound.
MR. POUND said yes. The Pullen case specifically declares that
fish are an asset, but the case only addresses fish. This bill
would provide that game also be considered an asset and be
managed accordingly.
1:22:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON cited apparent contradictions between
statements made by Senior Assistant Attorney General Kevin Saxby
and Attorney General Talis Colberg. In addition to including
the Board of Fisheries, he warned, lines 6-7 on page 1 contain
language that Mr. Colberg specifically stated would cause huge
problems in his fiscal note analysis for SSHB 348.
Additionally, the proposed CS was written by Mr. Saxby, not
Legislative Legal and Research Services. Representative Seaton
cited three February 2008 legal opinions from Legislative
Counsel Brian Kane regarding SSHB 348 and stated he is reticent
to adopt a CS that is not written by Legislative Legal and
Research Services and for which there is no opinion from [Mr.
Colberg].
MR. BARRY understood that Mr. Saxby did not draft the original
legislation.
MR. POUND said correct.
MR. BARRY further understood that the [fiscal note analysis]
cited by Representative Seaton was written by Mr. Saxby as
comments on the original SSHB 348. Mr. Saxby has worked with
the sponsor since then and is the person who either drafted or
approved the new language in the proposed CS. He drew attention
to the two-page document written by Mr. Saxby entitled,
"Preferred option", which states Mr. Saxby's preference for the
language in the proposed CS now before the committee. This
language addresses Mr. Saxby's initial concerns on the SS, said
Mr. Barry.
1:28:16 PM
MR. POUND added that the Board of Fisheries has been operating
under this since 1997 because it is working under the Pullen
decision. This language mirrors the Pullen decision.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that is not the case because the
proposed CS directs that the board "must regulate" in this
manner. The board has broad statutory authority and the Alaska
Supreme Court found that an initiative could not take that over
because it is an asset. However, the court's ruling that an
initiative cannot be done to allocate an asset is far different
than requiring that the Board of Fisheries must make all of its
management decisions based on an asset allocation. He
apologized for being mistaken regarding Mr. Saxby's earlier
involvement.
MR. POUND offered that removing the Board of Fisheries from the
proposed CS would not be a problem.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER confirmed Mr. Pound's statement regarding
removal of the Board of Fisheries.
CO-CHAIR GATTO stated that if the committee adopts the proposed
CS it will be on the presumption that it will be amended to
delete the Board of Fisheries.
1:31:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired whether the Board of Game has
been looking at game as an asset or whether the legislation will
completely change how the board has been dealing with game. She
suggested the bill be set aside until legal counsel is obtained
in this regard.
MR. POUND said the Board of Game is not presently managing game
as an asset because there is no language that allows the board
to do so. The bill would eliminate management of game by
initiative by applying to game the same principle applied to
fish by the Pullen decision. The Board of Game would then
operate in the same manner as the Board of Fisheries which
manages fish as an asset.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she had no problem with that.
MR. BARRY interjected that Mr. Saxby is the attorney for the
Board of Game, and since Mr. Saxby is comfortable with the
language he therefore assumes the Board of Game is comfortable
with it.
1:33:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH stated that without absolute testimony
as to what the language actually does and with the committee
being asked to assume, she can sign no recommendation should the
committee choose to move the bill forward today. The Alaska
Department of Fish & Game and Legislative Legal and Research
Services should be here to answer the questions given the
contrary opinions, she submitted.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG questioned whether AS 16.05.221 is the
correct section because it is more about who is on the Board of
Game and Board of Fisheries than it is about regulations.
MR. POUND acknowledged that this is a good point.
CO-CHAIR GATTO set aside SSHB 348. [Consideration of SSHB 348
was continued at 1:52:31 p.m.]
The committee took an at-ease from 1:37 p.m. to 1:39 p.m.
HJR 31-OPPOSE FED LAW RE AERIAL HUNTING
1:39:12 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31, Opposing the enactment of the
Protect America's Wildlife Act of 2007 that intends to prohibit
aerial hunting of wildlife, which is essential for predator
control in Alaska.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved that the committee adopt as the working
document the committee substitute (CS) for HJR 31, labeled 25-
LS385\E, Kane, 2/19/08 (Version E).
The committee took an at-ease from 1:40 p.m. to 1:46:08 PM.
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, supported
the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HJR 31 and thanked
the House Resources Standing Committee for improving the
resolution. He urged its passage.
1:46:25 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO explained that the proposed CS deletes "moose and
caribou represent livestock to" and substitutes "much of
Alaska's wildlife represents a natural food source for". He
further explained that the proposed CS does not include the
amendment to electronically transmit the resolution because of a
2/12/08 memorandum from Lieutenant Governor Parnell requesting
this not be done for joint resolutions.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that the proposed CS only says the
resolution shall be sent, it does not say how it shall be sent.
Since electronic transmission is not precluded, the resolution
could be distributed both ways [paper and electronically].
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH suggested resolutions be sent in both
electronic and post office formats due to the possibility of
time sensitivity.
There being no objection to the proposed CS as written, Version
E was before the committee.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to report HJR 31, labeled 25-LS385\E,
Kane, 2/19/08, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, CSHJR 31(RES) was
reported out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
HB 348-BOARD OF GAME REGULATIONS
1:52:31 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO returned to consideration of SSHB 348.
MR. POUND drew attention to the Department of Law's one-page
document entitled, "Less-preferred option".
The committee took an at-ease from 1:53 p.m. to 1:54:26 PM due
to a technical difficulty with the online sound system.
MR. POUND related that this language is Mr. Saxby's less-
preferred option primarily because it does not deal with fish at
all and could result in some questions as to different
management styles or philosophies between the two boards. He
noted that fish had been taken out of the original sponsor
substitute (SS), as well.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:55 p.m. to 2:04:30 PM due
to another technical difficulty with the online sound system.
MR. POUND pointed out that since the less-preferred option only
addresses game, the applicable section of statute is therefore
AS 16.05.255.
2:05:30 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether Representative Keller is
agreeable to making changes to the proposed CS for SSHB 348.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded yes.
CO-CHAIR GATTO said the motion to adopt Version 25-
LS1328\Resources as the working document is still on the table,
but that Representative Seaton, maker of the objection, is
absent [while momentarily attending another committee meeting].
He conveyed his understanding with Representative Seaton that
the objection was over the term fisheries. Co-Chair Gatto
therefore considered Representative Seaton's objection as not
maintained. There being no further objection, the proposed CS
for SSHB 348, labeled 25-LS1328\Resources, was before the
committee.
2:07:18 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1 as
follows:
Page 1, line 1;
Delete "Board of Fisheries and the";
Page 1, line 7;
Delete "fish or"
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG [objected]. Would fish not still be
involved because the purpose of the language is to conform to
the Pullen opinion, he asked.
CO-CHAIR GATTO offered his belief that this is the Board of Game
section and this section does not address fish.
2:09:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved an amendment to Amendment 1 to
include an additional deletion as follows:
Page 1, line 6,
Delete "appropriate"
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON further noted that the statute reference
on page 1, line 4, should be changed.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG removed his objection to Amendment 1.
There being no further objection, the amendment to Amendment 1
was adopted.
There being no objection, Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted
as follows:
Page 1, line 1:
delete "Board of Fisheries and the"
Page 1, line 7:
delete "fish or"
Page 1, line 6:
delete "appropriate"
The committee took an at-ease from 2:12 p.m. to 2:17 p.m.
2:17:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH moved that the committee adopt
Amendment 2 as follows: page 1, delete lines 4-7 and insert the
text from [Mr. Saxby's] "less preferred option".
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH, in response to Co-Chair Gatto,
explained the purpose of Amendment 2 is to bring forward a blank
page and on that blank page insert what an attorney has drafted
as the appropriate language. In further response to Co-Chair
Gatto, Representative Fairclough confirmed that AS 16.05.255(j)
is the correct reference, but that she will be making a
following amendment to have Legislative Research and Legal
Services look at the renumbering. She understood the proposed
amendment is not a definition; rather it is a way to manage and
is therefore an action item that will need to be (j).
2:19:54 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON withdrew his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted as follows (original
punctuation provided):
Page 1, lines 4-7:
Delete "Section 1. AS 16.05.221 is amended by
adding a new subsection to read.
(e) In this section, the terms 'conservation' and
'development' both require that the Board must
regulate in a manner that primarily concerns if, how,
when and where the public assets of game will be
allocated or appropriated.
insert "AS 16.05.255(j) is amended by adding a
new paragraph to read.
(e) In this section, the terms 'conservation,'
'development' and 'utilization' all require that the
Board must regulate in a manner that primarily
concerns if, how, when and where the public asset of
game will be allocated or appropriated."
2:20:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH moved that the committee adopt
Conceptual Amendment 3 as follows:
insert this (j) and renumber the following subsection
that is currently labeled (j) to (k)
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH, in response to Co-Chair Gatto,
confirmed Conceptual Amendment 3 will reletter and then
renumber.
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
2:21:43 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to report CSSSHB 348, labeled 25-
LS1328\Resources, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected. There are still questions
and one question is whether the word must changes how the board
is required to operate. He said he believes that the bill's
purpose to affect ballot initiatives is a bad thing and it will
not change anything except that there will be another lawsuit.
He expressed his concern over the legislature taking away the
people's right to ballot box for initiatives.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Roses, Edgmon,
Fairclough, Wilson, Gatto, and Johnson voted in favor of CSSSHB
348, as amended. Representative Guttenberg voted against it.
Representative Seaton was excused from voting. Therefore,
CSSSHB 348(RES) was reported out of the House Resources Standing
Committee by a vote of 6-1.
HB 330-NOXIOUS WEEDS AND INVASIVE PLANTS
2:26:30 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 330, "An Act relating to management of noxious
weeds and invasive plants; establishing the Noxious Weed and
Invasive Plant Board; and establishing the noxious weed and
invasive plant management fund."
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved that the committee adopt as the working
document the proposed CS for HB 330, labeled 25-LS1062\O,
Bullard, 2/19/08 (Version O). There being no objection, Version
O was before the committee.
2:28:17 PM
JEANNE OSTNES, Staff to Representative Craig Johnson, Alaska
State Legislature, explained the differences between the
original bill and the CS. She specified:
The original HB 330 was formed under Article 2 of AS
41.10. This would be Chapter 10, Soil and Water
Conservation of Title 4, which is your Public
Resources.
The original bill formed a board and identified the
powers and the duties of the board. It delineated
advisory groups of the board, agency cooperation and
joint operations. The original HB 330 also formed a
noxious weed and invasive plant management fund.
The CS for HB 330 reincarnates as a state coordinator
employed or appointed by the Commissioner of Natural
Resources. It is now in Title 3, which is Agriculture
and Animals, Chapter 5, Powers and Duties of the
Commissioners of Natural Resources and Environmental
Conservation, and it forms a new section, 027.
So, basically we've [taken] the original bill and
taken the board completely out and we now have a ...
state coordinator and this bill will allow the
Commissioner ... of Natural Resources to employ or
appoint a state coordinator for noxious weed, invasive
plant, and agricultural pest management, as well as
education. This coordinator will work through the
Division of Agriculture along with state departments,
agencies, and institutions. This person will bring
together the aforementioned entities in addition to
the University of Alaska Cooperative Extension Service
and the Alaska Association of Conservation Districts.
The Cooperative Extension Service has a broad range of
extension agents and they around the state work with
horticulture, which is your nursery and greenhouses,
agriculture, invasives, and the rural community
development in our rural parts of the state. Through
this coordination the State of Alaska will develop a
strategic plan and, more importantly, a start toward
limiting the economic loss and adverse effects [to]
the state's agricultural, natural, and human resources
because of the presence and spread of noxious weeds,
agricultural pests, invasive terrestrial and aquatic
plants in the state.
MS. OSTNES noted that the original fiscal note of $236,800 is
now reduced to about $80,000.
2:33:01 PM
BRYCE WRIGLEY, President, Alaska Farm Bureau, stated he is
comfortable with the proposed CS as written. He requested the
opportunity to testify should any amendments be introduced.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she thought the comments in a 2/15/08
letter from the Alaska Conservation Alliance were good ones.
She asked whether these comments regarding the original bill
were brought into Version O. She read page 2, paragraph 1, of
the comments which state (original punctuation provided):
... The definition of invasive species should be
amended so that it does not include species natural
northern migration due to the effects of global
climate change. As warming increases, a species
former range may be extended northward; as such, it
does not fit the typical definition of an invasive
species. This could be accomplished by making sure
that "alien" does not include indigenous species to
Alaska that may be naturally extending their range in
response to the effects of climate change.
CO-CHAIR GATTO remarked that his only issue with the comments is
that they represent complete common sense.
MS. OSTNES said the letter was written to the original bill and
[the Alaska Conservation Alliance's executive director] did not
have time to look at the CS.
2:35:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired whether the aforementioned
comments are addressed in Version O.
MS. OSTNES explained that with the deletion of the board, most
of that kind of information would come through regulations. The
Alaska Association of Conservation Districts yesterday voted to
accept Version O, she related. The association also voted to
take on the task of forming a board made up of the stakeholders
identified in the original bill. She said she believed that
once the "weed" board is formed under the Alaska Association of
Conservation Districts, all comers will be taken up.
2:36:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked why aquatic species are no longer
addressed by Version O. While they may not be a problem today,
they could be tomorrow as a result of global warming.
MS. OSTNES said the sponsor statement identifies terrestrial and
aquatic plants in the state and she believes that becomes a part
of the board's duties to expand, discuss, and develop. She
related that there is also a board within the state that is
dealing specifically with invasives and she believes there is a
plan to establish an all-taxa council that would address
aquatics, mammals, pests, microorganisms, weeds, and all other
things.
2:37:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON noted that the definitions for invasive
plant and noxious weed are no included in Version O. He
inquired whether the definitions currently in statute for
invasive plant and noxious weed are sufficient.
MS. OSTNES responded that the statutes are not good enough and
regulations need to be updated. The CS allows the Alaska
Association of Conservation Districts to deal with this by
making recommendations.
2:39:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON drew attention to the inclusion of
"federal agencies" on page 1, lines 11-12. He asked whether
"federal" should be added to page 2, line 18, to make it
consistent.
MS. OSTNES replied she believes the board can coordinate with
federal agencies, but it cannot make recommendations directly to
the federal agencies to change federal regulations. She
deferred to others more familiar with how this would work.
PETER FELLMAN, Staff to Representative John Harris, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that he has been a farmer in Alaska for over
20 years. He said the federal agencies are already working on
programs throughout the Lower 48 that are funded and have
standards already established by law. In order for Alaska to
qualify for some of that federal funding, the state needs to
give the board person the ability to consult with the federal
agencies so Alaska can match its program to the federal
qualifications. The board person cannot make recommendations;
he or she can only consult to make sure Alaska's recommendations
meet federal guidelines.
2:42:58 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO surmised the board person would be allowed to
coordinate with federal agencies without it being put into
statute.
MR. FELLMAN agreed. He cautioned against the state locking
itself in with statute that does not allow for development of a
state plan. This board and this person need to be given the
ability to work with all these different entities and agencies
to create something that works that can then it can be put into
regulations so it can be modified over time and continue to
work. If it is locked into statute, the state will go through
this process every year, he warned.
2:43:48 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether it would be better to delete
"state" from page 2, line 18, so it would read, "recommendations
to departments and agencies". Thus, there would be no
restrictions as to whether it is state or federal departments
and agencies.
MR. FELLMAN said that would make the legislation more fluid so
there is the opportunity to make changes on the go.
MS. OSTNES explained that Version O takes the board out of
statute and puts it as part of the Alaska Association of
Conservation Districts. Thus, there needs to be some way to
bring in at least four of Alaska's state departments - the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, the Department
of Environmental Conservation, the Department of Natural
Resources, and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game. So, she
said, there needs to be some way to allow the coordinator to
[work with state departments]. In further response to Co-Chair
Gatto, she said she is not suggesting the four departments be
specifically identified in the bill. Rather, by keeping "state
departments" in the bill it leaves it wide open for the
coordinator to talk to any and all departments.
2:46:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES observed that page 1 deals with
coordinating with state and federal agencies and page 2, lines
18-20, deals with reviewing and making recommendations to state
departments and agencies regarding state regulations and
statutes. Therefore the current language is appropriate.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON pointed out that it must be a state recognized
board and a state plan in order to qualify for federal funds.
If "state" is taken out, the ability to apply for federal money
may be lost and that ability is the purpose of this legislation.
2:47:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether the three-year sunset is
enough time to accomplish what needs to be accomplished.
MR. FELLMAN said the sunset's purpose is to provide fiscal
accountability in the Department of Agriculture as to whether
the state's money is really accomplishing something. It ensures
that the individual knows he or she will be held accountable and
if federal funds are not received and the program is not put
together, the job will go away.
2:48:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired whether a three-year sunset
provides enough time to determine that the plan is working.
MR. FELLMAN responded that a lot of the groundwork is already
done. The Alaska Committee for Noxious & Invasive Plants
Management (CNIPM) has done a lot of work, the soil and water
conservation districts already exist and have plans and maps and
have identified the weeds and problems, and the districts
already know how to do the control. The goal now is to get a
person in the Division of Agriculture to gather all that
information together and develop a state plan so it can be
funded by federal money. It is not how well the plan is
working, he said, it is whether or not the state is making a
plan and that is what HB 330 would do.
2:51:14 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to report HB 330, labeled 25-LS1062\O,
Bullard, 2/19/08, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 330(RES) was reported out of the House
Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:53 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|