03/17/2017 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB19 | |
| HB46 | |
| HB172 | |
| Presentation(s) Agriculture Activities in Alaska | |
| Presentation(s): Nenana Agriculture Land | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 46 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 17, 2017
2:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative Dean Westlake, Vice Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Justin Parish
Representative Chris Birch
Representative George Rauscher
Representative David Talerico
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
Representative Chris Tuck (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 19
"An Act limiting the application of neonicotinoid pesticides."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 46
"An Act relating to the state and municipal procurement
preferences for agricultural products harvested in the state and
fisheries products harvested or processed in the state; relating
to the sale of milk, milk products, raw milk, and raw milk
products; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 172
"An Act relating to the regulation and production of industrial
hemp; relating to industrial hemp pilot programs; providing that
industrial hemp is not included in the definition of
'marijuana'; and clarifying that adding industrial hemp to food
does not create an adulterated food product."
- HEARD & HELD
PRESENTATION(S) AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES IN ALASKA
- HEARD
PRESENTATION(S): NENANA AGRICULTURE LAND
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 19
SHORT TITLE: BAN NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DRUMMOND
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) RES
03/17/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 46
SHORT TITLE: PROCURE AK FISH/AG PROD.; ALASKA GROWN
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/13/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) STA, RES, FIN
03/08/17 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
03/08/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/08/17 (H) RES, FIN
03/15/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/15/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/17 (H) MINUTE (RES)
03/15/17 (H) RES AT 6:00 PM BARNES 124
03/15/17 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/17/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 172
SHORT TITLE: INDUSTRIAL HEMP PRODUCTION LICENSES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DRUMMOND
03/10/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/17 (H) RES, JUD
03/15/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/15/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/17 (H) MINUTE (RES)
03/15/17 (H) RES AT 6:00 PM BARNES 124
03/15/17 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/17/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JOANNA SCHULTZ, Staff
Representative Harriett Drummond
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Drummond, prime
sponsor, explained the changes made in the proposed committee
substitute for HB 19, and answered questions.
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
19.
ROB CARTER, Manager
Plant Materials Center (PMC)
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
19.
DAVID OTNESS
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 19, offered
testimony.
LOUIS TOZZI
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 19, offered
testimony.
PAMELA K. MILLER, Biologist and Executive Director
Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 19, had her
written testimony paraphrased by Patti J. Saunders.
PATTI J. SAUNDERS
Development Director
Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question during the hearing on
HB 19.
JOHN ANDERSON
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 46.
DAVID OTNESS
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 46.
JOHANNA HERRON, Development Specialist II
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question during the hearing on
HB 46.
DAVID OTNESS
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 172.
JACK BENNETT
Alaska Representative
Industrial Hemp Manufacturing, LLC (IHM)
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 172, offered
testimony.
WES SCHACHT
Alaska Cannabis Advocacy
Fritz Creek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 172, offered
testimony.
ROBERT CARTER, Manager
Plant Materials Center (PMC)
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
172.
PATRICK FITZGERALD, Staff
Representative Harriet Drummond
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on
HB 172, on behalf of Representative Drummond, prime sponsor.
GEORGE PIERCE
Kasilof, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony during the hearing on HB
172.
ED MARTIN, JR.
Cooper Landing, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony during the hearing on HB
172.
ARTHUR KEYES, Acting Director
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a presentation regarding agricultural
activities in Alaska.
ELIJAH VERHAGEN, Staff
Representative Dave Talerico
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint presentation, "Nenana
Totchaket Bridge to Resources," on behalf of Representative
Talerico.
ARTHUR KEYS, Director
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources
City, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered comments during the presentation on
Nenana Agriculture Land.
WYNN MENEFEE, Deputy Director
Trust Land Office (TLO)
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information during the presentation
on the Nenana Agriculture Land.
ACTION NARRATIVE
2:05:39 PM
CO-CHAIR ANDY JOSEPHSON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. Representatives
Josephson, Talerico, Parish, Westlake, Rauscher, Drummond, and
Tarr were present at the call to order. Representative Rauscher
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 19-BAN NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDES
2:06:44 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 19, "An Act limiting the application of
neonicotinoid pesticides."
2:07:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND, speaking as the sponsor of HB 19,
remarked:
One in three bites of food we eat relies on
pollinators. Alaska's primary pollinators are native
bumble bees; the diversity of native bees in Alaska is
astonishing. About 4,000 different species have been
cataloged in North America, and of those, 49 are found
in Alaska. Bumble bees are the most prominent of
those and are excellent pollinators, especially of
Alaska's berry species .... More than 9 million
European honeybees are imported into Alaska each year
for honey production. These bees play a significant
role in pollinating Alaska's crops and wildlands.
Alaskan beekeepers are starting to overwinter bees in
order to develop heartier Alaskan bee stock.
Bee populations have been in an alarming decline since
2006, in many parts of the world. For the first time
this year, a bumble bee species in the United States
was declared endangered by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Widespread use of a relatively new class of
toxic pesticide, neonicotinoids, is a significant
contributing factor. In addition to killing bees
outright, research has shown that even low levels of
neonicotinoids impair bees' ability to find their way
back to the hive, collect food, produce new queens,
and mount an effective immune response.
This legislation would protect both agriculture and
wild plants that rely on pollinators. The bill aims
to prevent the spread of these pesticides before they
impact Alaskan agriculture. Over two-thirds of the
... farmers involved with the Alaska Grown program
grow crops that depend on bees for pollination. So,
in spirit of Co-Chair Tarr's third annual Food
Security Week, we introduce this bill, not only to
protect Alaska's pollinators but to protect Alaska's
growing agricultural industry.
2:09:37 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 19, Version 30-LS0219\D, Nauman, 3/8/17, as the
working document.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected for discussion purposes.
2:10:03 PM
JOANNA SCHULTZ, Staff, Representative Harriett Drummond, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Drummond, prime
sponsor of HB 19, informed the committee the main difference
between the original version of the bill and Version D is that
under Version D, if [neonicotinoid] pesticides are used, then
[the treated seeds, foliage, or soil], must remain in the
greenhouse for the remainder of their life span. In addition,
the bill exempts certified pesticide applicators and allows
certified pesticide "users" to continue using pesticides outside
or inside a greenhouse. In response to Co-Chair Josephson, she
clarified that [under Version D], anything the pesticides have
been used on must stay in a greenhouse.
2:11:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he has heard that bees are dying
around the world and he asked whether there is evidence that is
currently happening in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND replied that it is not happening in
Alaska yet, because the neonicotinoid class of pesticides is not
widely used in Alaska at this time. The goal of the proposed
legislation is to prevent the bees in Alaska, which are mostly
wild pollinators, from being impacted by the use of
neonicotinoid pesticides.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER questioned how bee activity is recorded
in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND answered through the Department of
Environmental Conservation.
2:13:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER restated his question as to how the
state will know whether the use of the pesticide has affected
bees in Alaska.
2:13:58 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), answered that
DEC is not directly tracking bee kill-off in Alaska, but the
department works with its counterparts in other states to track
those bee kill-offs throughout the nation and also works with
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
2:14:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE asked whether there are any unintended
consequences Ms. Carpenter has seen in other states from using
neonicotinoid pesticides.
MS. CARPENTER offered to provide the committee with some
examples.
2:16:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND concluded her presentation of HB 19 by
warning that the legislature needs to stop the spread of
neonicotinoid pesticides to prevent their widespread use in
Alaska.
2:16:23 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON observed the bill directs that the use of the
pesticides would have to be entirely within a greenhouse and
whatever is being grown would have to stay in the greenhouse.
He asked, "Is the idea that if a private person wants to take a
risk with exposure, that's up to the individual?"
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND indicated yes. She clarified that the
bill references commercial greenhouses and pointed out it is
unknown whether seedlings coming up from the Lower 48 have been
pretreated with neonicotinoids. Large home improvement stores
and stores such as Fred Meyer, sell thousands of seedlings that
are grown elsewhere, and Alaska has no control over how they've
been treated unless they come from a state that forbids the use
of neonicotinoids. Furthermore, some states may not forbid use
in a greenhouse where some seedlings are started; the goal of
the legislation is to keep use of the pesticides from spreading
in Alaska. Representative Drummond explained that use by an
individual in his/her own backyard may not seem significant;
however, bees spend the summer in her backyard and she does not
want to expose them to neonicotinoids. Representative Drummond
described the legislation as a contribution to a much larger
effort.
2:18:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked where else this ban has been
enforced, and to what effect.
MS. SCHULTZ offered her understanding that Maryland passed a ban
last year that focuses on the restriction of sales rather than
on usage, and the state will allow existing products to be sold
for two years before the ban takes full effect. In addition,
certain cities have enacted bans, for example, Portland and
Eugene, Oregon, and Spokane, Washington.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether there have been any efforts
internationally.
MS. SCHULTZ said the European Union, in 2013, enacted a ban and
has been reviewing the ban either last year or this year.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether the European Union has seen
any effects on the bee population since enacting the ban.
MS. SCHULTZ said she has not seen studies but surmised that is
because they are still in the process of being conducted. She
added, "But that was the goal of the ... ban, so that they could
really see if it ... made a difference."
2:20:09 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON expressed his understanding that Minnesota is
a cutting-edge jurisdiction, in terms of banning some of these
pesticides. He asked whether other states ban at least some
classes of pesticides.
MS. SCHULTZ agreed Minnesota has been working on some related
legislation, but only Maryland passed legislation to ban the
sale of neonicotinoids, [with the exemption to] certified
pesticide applicators.
2:20:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH inquired as to the availability of the
neonicotinoid pesticides.
2:21:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND advised [neonicotinoid pesticides] are
already available in the retail market. She said she is unsure
whether or how professional applicators are using
[neonicotinoid] pesticides. She related that her staff
contacted all the growers in Alaska that were available for
comment and none of them are using [neonicotinoid pesticides].
Notwithstanding that, she remarked that anyone can go to [Alaska
Mill Feed & Garden Center] and purchase products that include
neonicotinoid pesticides.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if there is a brand name to look for
in the list of ingredients on a particular product.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND answered that there are a number of
these classes of pesticides.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH explained his consideration is for the
average customer walking into a store to buy a pest killer, not
the professionals that "know what they're doing." He asked
again if there is a brand name to identify.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND answered, "Bayer is one of them." She
said that until she learned about neonicotinoid pesticides, she
had been unaware she was applying them to her plants for many
years. She described the product as expensive - about $150 for
1.5 gallons. She said she limits her use of the product she
bought [containing neonicotinoid pesticides] to only when she
sees aphids. She explained that the products are not supposed
to be used when plants are flowering, because that is when bees
come to the plants to pollenate them. She said the average user
may not follow the rules, but commercial users are exempt
because they are supposed to be applying the pesticide at the
appropriate time in the plants' cycles.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if the pesticide used to obliterate
wasps can also damage bees.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND answered that she is not sure, but she
noted that there are some wasps in the pollinator class. She
added, "But if you're just attacking wasps, I can't imagine that
it's going to impact flowers nearby."
2:25:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER questioned whether wasps, bees, and
bumblebees are all the same classification of insect.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said she doesn't know. Notwithstanding
that, she related that the 49 pollinators identified in Alaska
include not only bees of various types, but also wasps and
certain varieties of flies.
2:27:13 PM
ROB CARTER, Manager, Plant Materials Center (PMC), Division of
Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), offered that
most [pesticides], including neonicotinoid pesticides, are not
selective: "They will kill things." In response to a follow-up
question from Representative Rauscher, he said he would not
state that the pesticides kill "all" insects. He said, "I will
say that ... these do have significant impact on a large
majority of the insects out there. That is their intention and
that is their use and why they were created."
2:27:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER remarked that wasps eat aphids. He
offered his understanding that wasps had been brought into
Alaska for that specific purpose. He asked, "So, if these are
on the plant, the aphids are there, and the wasp eats the aphid,
then what's the deal?"
2:27:56 PM
MR. CARTER answered that wasps and bees are in the same kingdom,
phylum, and class, but are in a different suborder. He
confirmed there are parasitic wasps that attack aphids. He said
[neonicotinoid pesticides] also kill aphids, but he does not
know if a wasp would be affected by eating an aphid that had fed
on a plant that had been treated with a neonicotinoid pesticide.
2:29:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE said he applauds HB 19, but he expressed
concern about unintended consequences. He questioned whether
the proposed legislation might result in a situation in which
there are trees along a highway being killed by pests, but "we
can't do anything about it."
2:30:32 PM
MS. SCHULTZ pointed out that Version D would not ban the
application of neonicotinoid pesticides by certified
applicators, which generally would be the ones treating a pest
invasion alongside a highway.
2:31:06 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR noted that she is a botanist who has worked on
this issue for about 20 years. She opined that the changes in
Version D are reasonable, because most of the concern about the
application of [neonicotinoid pesticides] is in regard to those
individuals who are untrained and over apply the product or use
it under the wrong conditions. Limiting the use of
neonicotinoid pesticides to commercially trained applicators
manages "improper application in the environment" as well as
protecting the applicators from any unnecessary exposure.
2:32:01 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON expressed his support of HB 19 and his
concern regarding the health of the bee population in the U.S.
He stated his assumption that the proposed legislation pertains
to healthy ecosystems, but surmised it may also link to economic
systems in Alaska. He asked the bill sponsor to explain "why
bees are important in that respect."
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND answered that over two-thirds of the
farmers in the Alaska Grown program depend upon bees to
pollinate their crops. She reemphasized the proportion of the
world's food that relies on pollination. She stated, "There are
billions of bees that are bred and moved around in the world of
agriculture to be there at the appropriate time for pollinating
those particular crops. It's a huge industry in the Lower 48."
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON drew attention to the fiscal note. He noted
that he is not a legislator who subscribes to the idea that in
tough fiscal times no legislation should ever cost anything. He
invited the bill sponsor to comment on the fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND replied that she is having difficulty
believing that DEC needs "one entire person to track a single
pesticide" when it is already tracking a number of other
chemicals. She added, "But it's hard for me to question the
professionals in this manner."
2:34:04 PM
MS. SCHULTZ pointed out that the fiscal note aligns with the
original bill version; therefore, it does not include "the
certified applicators piece." She said, "That may and should
lower the fiscal note."
2:34:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH questioned why the bill sponsor chose to
focus on the application rather than sale of [neonicotinoid
pesticides]. He said studies have shown that [neonicotinoid
pesticides] can also kill birds and potentially mammals and
fish, as well.
2:35:00 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR, based on her experience with similar legislation
in the past, imparted that "you cannot ban the sale, because it
violates the U.S. Constitution Interstate Commerce Clause." The
choice, she explained, is to limit how the product is used in
Alaska.
2:35:27 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON noted that last year, on the federal level,
there was a "fairly controversial" bipartisan effort regarding
"further restrictions on chemicals and that sort of thing."
MS. SCHULTZ, after ascertaining that Co-Chair Josephson had been
referring to Maryland, offered her understanding that "they have
restricted where you can purchase these pesticides; so, you can
purchase neonicotinoid pesticides where you can also purchase
restricted use pesticides." She said she is not aware of any
stores in Alaska that "strictly sell restricted use pesticides."
2:36:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER mentioned that beekeepers are concerned
about [neonicotinoid pesticides], and he said he wants to learn
as much as possible about the issue before voting on the
proposed legislation. He referred to reading material that
states that a single kernel of corn treated with neonicotinoid
pesticides can kill a songbird that ingests it and "as little as
one-tenth of a coated kernel seed per day during egg-laying
season can impair reproduction..." He questioned how weather
such as rain or snow may affect the strength or neonicotinoid
pesticides on plants and whether there could be runoff that
could affect other plants.
MS. SCHULTZ stated that she is not an expert. Notwithstanding
that, she offered her understanding that the chemicals enter the
plant and end up in the pollen that is collected by the bees.
2:39:35 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON imparted to anyone curious about the issue
that the proper federal law to look at is the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which he
offered his understanding had not recently been amended. He
added, "It was TOSCA, which was the Toxic Chemicals Act that was
just..."
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON opened public testimony on HB 19.
2:40:14 PM
DAVID OTNESS expressed appreciation that the issue before the
committee is being addressed. He opined that the onus should be
on the manufacturers of pesticides to first prove that they are
not harmful. He said [neonicotinoid pesticides] have been
linked as the source of "massive die-offs." He characterized
neonicotinoid pesticides as a powerful poison, and he offered
his understanding that they are derived from the tobacco plant,
which in itself is a powerful drug. He concluded, "Before
things get to the point where there could be conflicts of people
wanting to use this on a commercial scale, I think it's
excellent that we address it proactively right now and sort of
take that attitude with much of what we're facing ahead of us
here. I think it would ... clarify a lot of things for the
public, and also those who might want to use it to begin with."
2:42:15 PM
LOUIS TOZZI noted that he had sent an e-mail to the committee,
but would address a few important points today. Regarding the
threat neonicotinoid pesticides have on bees, he explained that
the biggest issue is that neonicotinoid pesticides are systemic;
all tissue of the plants - including the nectar and pollen -
pick up and retain the pesticides, which "makes the plant itself
a pesticide." Bees gather nectar, which has low levels of the
pesticide, but in the process of making honey from that nectar,
water evaporates, which essentially has the effect of
concentrating [the neonicotinoid pesticides]. Mr. Tozzi advised
that because neonicotinoid pesticides are long-lived, they tend
to last in the plant for the entire life of the plant. He said,
"So while applying them when the plant is blooming is an issue,
it ... could have been applied much sooner than that and it
still presents an impact to the honey bees."
MR. TOZZI directed attention to language in the bill that read,
"applied to the soil in granular form". He advised this is a
big problem, because "it creates a loophole where a farmer who
purchases ... or greenhouse person who purchases treated seed
from ... outside of Alaska could potentially plant that seed
outdoors." He explained this possibility would exist because
the bill language, in only specifying granular form, would not
prevent "a liquid or a seed with a treatment on it."
MR. TOZZI suggested another possible issue is that after
application, these chemicals will often "drift out" as a dry
residue to areas beyond the intended farm fields, and the
neonicotinoid pesticides are readily picked up by the indigenous
plants in the adjacent countryside.
2:46:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked what Mr. Tozzi's credentials are
regarding [neonicotinoid pesticides].
MR. TOZZI answered that he is a beekeeper and part of a group of
beekeepers working to breed an Alaska-hardy bee so that
beekeeping in Alaska can be more sustainable. He said bees
overwinter in Alaska, but not without much intervention on the
part of beekeepers. He concluded, "And so, I don't have
scientific background other than what I need to know as a
beekeeper."
2:47:43 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:48 p.m.
2:48:20 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON indicated that he would like to hear from Ms.
Carpenter regarding Mr. Tozzi's comment that treated seeds could
be placed outside and thus circumvent a prohibition on the
granular form of [neonicotinoid pesticides].
2:48:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, regarding the systemic nature of
[neonicotinoid pesticides], said he would like to know if there
are other pesticides that are also [systemic]. He further
questioned if the comments about [neonicotinoid pesticides]
becoming part of honey could also apply to other pesticides.
2:49:38 PM
MS. CARPENTER offered to follow up with information.
2:50:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said he has friends in Fairbanks that are
beekeepers and understands the biggest challenge in
overwintering the bees is in keeping them fed. He asked if bees
are more resistant to one pesticide over another or whether the
problem with the neonicotinoid pesticides is that they are
longer lived.
2:51:17 PM
MR. TOZZI answered that "the pesticides" are long-lived and will
last through winter after being brought back to the hive. He
reiterated his explanation about the evaporation of water from
the honey resulting in a more concentrated level of pesticide.
He said one theory as to the mid-winter disappearance of bees in
the Lower 48 is that the bees, having ingested the pesticide,
which is a neurotoxin, "lose track of where they're supposed to
be and what they're supposed to be doing and then fly off in the
middle of winter." Mr. Tozzi said he has heard anecdotally of
that happening in Alaska, but he said he cannot say that is what
the cause was. Mr. Tozzi noted that the pesticides are also
stored in the beeswax, which is an economic factor, because
"clean beeswax is something that's very difficult to come by."
He said the ongoing low level [of pesticides] to the colonies
makes it much more difficult for them to survive the winter.
2:53:59 PM
PAMELA K. MILLER, Biologist and Executive Director, Alaska
Community Action on Toxics (ACAT), had her written testimony
paraphrased by Patti J. Saunders. Ms. Miller's testimony - a
letter to Representative Drummond dated March 15, 2017,
[included in the committee packet] - read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
I am writing on behalf of Alaska Community Action on
Toxics, a statewide non-profit environmental health
research and advocacy organization. Thank you for your
introduction of HB 19, "An Act limiting the
application of neonicotinoid pesticides." We strongly
endorse this bill as an important measure to protect
bees and other pollinators so crucial to a majority of
our crops that serve as vital food resources.
Neonicotinoid pesticides have long been associated
with harm to bees and other pollinators. In 2016, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the
first risk assessment of neonicotinoid pesticides and
concluded that they can cause significant harm to
honeybees. Increasing independent peer-reviewed
scientific evidence has demonstrated that the
widespread use of the dangerous class of neonicotinoid
pesticides is a factor in the precipitous decline of
bees and other pollinators. Studies have shown serious
adverse effects to bees including navigational
ability, mobility, and reproduction. Even small
exposures to neonicotinoid pesticides can damage bees'
ability to gather pollen, impair their memory and
social behavior, weaken their immune systems, and harm
colony health and longevity. Scientists have shown
that exposure to certain neonicotinoid pesticides
reduces bees' immune defenses, promoting infections
associated with such diseases as deformed wing virus.
Recent scientific studies have shown that chronic
exposure of honeybees to environmental levels of
neonicotinoid pesticides can impair their learning and
memory. Another study reported that wild bees exposed
to neonicotinoid-coated seeds had reduced nesting and
were not successful in building brood cells for new
larvae. In addition, chronic exposure to one of the
most commonly used neonicotinoid pesticides
(imidacloprid) was found to be associated with reduced
brood production, reduced colony growth, and an 85%
reduction in the production of bumblebee queens.
Neonicotinoid pesticides are also found to have
adverse effects on many other non-target and
beneficial organisms, including butterflies, birds,
and aquatic insects. There are also emerging concerns
about the possible adverse neurodevelopmental effects
of neonicotinoid pesticides on children. We believe
the evidence supports the need for urgent legislative
action. We urge swift passage of this bill to suspend
the use of these harmful chemicals in Alaska.
2:57:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked how widespread [neonicotinoid
pesticides] are commercially compared to other pesticides.
PATTI J. SAUNDERS, Development Director, Alaska Community Action
on Toxics (ACAT), answered that they are commonly available, but
she has not done the research yet to know the percentages. She
stated, "Just reading the label isn't necessarily going to help
people, because this class of pesticides is not labeled as a
class." For example, someone might see "imidacloprid" may be on
the label, but someone reading that may not realize that it is
[a neonicotinoid pesticide that is killing bees]. She said
education of both sellers and consumers is necessary. She said
she thinks there is already a lot of concern among regarding
neonicotinoid pesticides, and she surmised that Alaskans would
welcome more information about "these endocrine disrupting
pesticides."
2:59:34 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON removed his objection to the previous motion
to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 19,
Version 30-LS0219\D, Nauman, 3/8/17, as the working document.
There being no further objection, Version D was before the
committee.
2:59:50 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON closed public testimony on HB 19 and
announced that HB 19 was held over.
3:00:08 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON handed the gavel to Co-Chair Tarr.
HB 46-PROCURE AK FISH/AG PROD.; ALASKA GROWN
3:00:53 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 46, "An Act relating to the state and municipal
procurement preferences for agricultural products harvested in
the state and fisheries products harvested or processed in the
state; relating to the sale of milk, milk products, raw milk,
and raw milk products; and providing for an effective date."
3:01:00 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR opened public testimony on HB 46.
3:01:28 PM
JOHN ANDERSON expressed appreciation to the committee for its
interest in agriculture. He said he had concerns about the
proposed legislation. He related that he is a livestock
producer and "HB 46 is a good attempt at a futile process that
someone like myself can't touch." He stated that while there
may be a small trickledown effect, [the proposed legislation]
would benefit just a few farmers. He explained that
unfortunately he could not touch a price point anywhere close to
15 percent.
MR. ANDERSON said another issue is in determining what will be
considered "Alaska Grown." He questioned whether animals would
be allowed to be brought to Alaska and slaughtered the next day
and qualify for marketing at the 15 percent increase or if it
will be held to the high standard of Alaska Grown, which is that
the animal [has been in Alaska] for 51 percent of its life. He
predicted that if imported animals are "allowed to be considered
to this standard without any check," then "certain producers
will take advantage of bottom floor cattle and hog prices -
especially in Canada right now - and walk away making lots of
quick bucks and having an almost zero impact in our state." He
indicated that those producers would not be buying grain or hay
in substantial amounts; therefore, he questioned the worth of a
program that of which people can take advantage.
MR. ANDERSON mentioned the (indisc.), on which he is a member,
is thriving; however, he cautioned the committee that he has
witnessed many instances of disregard for the rules and the
intentional mislabeling of products. He said he has brought
many of his concerns to the Division of Agriculture, and "they
do not feel they can protect the logo anymore." He said because
the division will no longer investigate "wrongdoings," some
[producers] have started new labels, such as "Golden Heart
Grown" in the Interior and "Grow Palmer" in Palmer, Alaska.
CO-CHAIR TARR, as prime sponsor of HB 46, informed Mr. Anderson
that under current statute, the percentage is 7 percent. She
surmised that if the [proposed] 15 percent would not allow Mr.
Anderson an opportunity, then the existing 7 percent certainly
would not, because it is over 50 percent less. She said she
understands that while the proposed change is a "big
improvement," it will not accommodate everyone. She indicated
her understanding of the challenges of being a small producer of
livestock or produce. She explained her commitment to continue
working beyond the opportunity proposed under HB 46 "to support
... things that will allow more opportunity for a small producer
like yourself." She indicated that the reason she supported the
Mt. McKinley Meat Processing Facility was so that people such as
Mr. Anderson could have the opportunity to get into the market.
CO-CHAIR TARR, regarding the issue of "Alaska Grown," said, "We
would anticipate using the same Alaska Grown rule and standard
that's in place now." Notwithstanding that, she acknowledged
the concern raised by Mr. Anderson regarding imported animals.
3:06:31 PM
DAVID OTNESS testified that he liked the sentiment behind [HB
46] and wants Alaska to develop more intrastate commerce. He
said he would hold back from offering further testimony until he
got "up to speed" on [the proposed legislation].
3:07:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH questioned whether the statement made by a
previous testifier - that animals could be imported one day,
slaughtered the next, and marketed as Alaska Grown - was
accurate.
3:07:56 PM
JOHANNA HERRON, Development Specialist II, Division of
Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), responded
that that is not current practice. She said, "The certification
policy that was passed in previous years states clearly ... that
livestock must be raised 51 percent of its life or more in the
state to be marketed as Alaska Grown." She said there have been
a couple instances where "that has been challenged and concerns
have been raised, and ... we investigate ... as we hear of
those."
3:08:35 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 46. In
response to Representative Rauscher, she stated her intent for
the committee to move HB 46 that day.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted that his district reaches Palmer,
Glennallen, Delta, and Valdez, and it contains a lot of cultural
land and livestock. He requested HB 46 be held for another
hearing so that he would have time to speak to his constituent
farmers.
3:10:15 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR said she does not mind honoring that request, but
she indicated it could result in the committee having to meet in
the evenings to catch up on its workload. She pointed out that
she has been working on "this particular product preference
statute" since 2014 and has presented information at several
"farm bureau meetings," working closely with many of the
individuals in Representative Rauscher's district.
3:11:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER expressed his appreciation for the work
that has been done thus far, and he maintained his desire to
have more time with HB 46.
3:11:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE suggested that Representative Rauscher
could talk to someone within the Division of Agriculture who may
be stationed in Representative Rauscher's district.
3:12:10 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR expressed her hope that Representative Rauscher
could get the answers he needed either from division staff or
his constituents.
3:13:03 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that HB 46 was held over.
HB 172-INDUSTRIAL HEMP PRODUCTION LICENSES
3:13:07 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 172, "An Act relating to the regulation and
production of industrial hemp; relating to industrial hemp pilot
programs; providing that industrial hemp is not included in the
definition of 'marijuana'; and clarifying that adding industrial
hemp to food does not create an adulterated food product."
3:13:11 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR opened public testimony on HB 172.
3:13:21 PM
DAVID OTNESS testified that he thinks it is important that "we
expand into a hardy crop that has so many applications and none
of the negatives formerly associated with it." He opined that
there is potential in Alaska for those willing to remain in the
state "through thick and thin," and he remarked that what the
state is about to endure is "the thin."
MR. OTNESS said [HB 172] should give people "a good means of
supplementing their existing operations and perhaps incentivize
others to ... start up." He said [hemp] seems to have
"unlimited potential" and is a hardy plant that should thrive
with [Alaska's] daylight hours. He concluded, "I just heartily
endorse the idea of our agriculture expanding this direction."
3:14:42 PM
JACK BENNETT, Alaska Representative, Industrial Hemp
Manufacturing, LLC (IHM), testified that industrial hemp is not
"a marijuana issue" - it is an agricultural issue. He
encouraged the committee to "rethink the way we think about
hemp." Mr. Bennett stated, "My company ... [is] North America's
largest. It has the capability of producing 40 million pounds
annually and it's ... devoted ... to the oil well companies, to
help Alaskan fluids engineers drill faster, lighter, and
cheaper."
MR. BENNETT said all of the company's fiber is sold to an
automotive partner in Indiana that manufactures American
automobiles with bio-composites, hemp plastics, which he said
are stronger than fiberglass on a boat [and more] flexible than
a formula one race car.
MR. BENNETT said he has presented [hemp] to the military as a
remediation product that replaces polypropylene booms in the
water, is five times more absorbent, and rather than ending up
in a land fill turns into an energy source. He said, "That
remediation product, through these plant fiber technologies, are
also ... applied in the soil in the granular form to remediate
land impacted by crude [oil], chemicals, radiation - what have
you - within 90 days."
MR. BENNETT shared that he is building a model home in Homer,
Alaska, as an affordable housing solution. He said, "There are
6,000 unit shortages in rural Alaska." He relayed that 22,000
acres [of hemp grown] in one season produce 6,000 homes that are
1,000 square feet in size. Mr. Bennett concluded, "It doesn't
matter how green it is; at the end of the day, we're all here to
make money."
3:17:06 PM
MR. BENNETT, in response to questions from Representative
Rauscher, imparted that the equipment used by IHM costs $30
million and there are only five made: two in France, two in
South Africa, and one in North Carolina. He said the company
works with farmers in Alaska "to collect the material devoted to
remediation and oil and gas industries in Alaska."
3:18:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked, "Where do you get your hemp from
now to be a head manufacturer incorporated?"
MR. BENNETT answered that North Carolina is currently "shaping"
its regulations and policies. He said 7,000 acres of industrial
hemp is needed in order to produce 40 million annually and his
"counterparts" are looking to purchase 14,000 acres, because the
machinery "has the ability to expand to 80 million pounds." He
indicated that the company is currently using kenaf, which is a
member of the hibiscus family. He indicated the U.S. Navy had
studied the high absorbency of kenaf in use as a remediation
product, and he stated that hemp is even more absorbent. He
indicated that IHM uses kenaf as an alternative to hemp.
MR. BENNETT, in response to Representative Rauscher, said kenaf
is grown in "the tobacco belt," in Georgia and North Carolina.
To a follow-up question, Mr. Bennett informed the committee that
kenaf is a legal product used in the automotive industry [in
the] manufacture of automotive parts. The [automotive]
companies are transitioning out of kenaf [use] into the use of
industrial hemp, because the latter has "more value-added
products."
3:20:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH offered his understanding that Mr. Bennett
had implied that his organization is prepared to make a
substantial investment in Alaska. He asked Mr. Bennett if that
estimation is accurate and what the dollar amount might be.
MR. BENNETT responded that he "has presented to many oil well
drilling companies in Alaska." He stated, "This is an emergent
... technology that helps the fluids engineer, and this is what
they'll use for now on. That industry alone - that mud additive
- is a billion-dollar industry annually."
3:21:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH offered his understanding that Mr. Bennett
had said IMH is considering "bringing a plant to Alaska." He
asked how quickly "we" could expect to see "more substantive
investment" from Mr. Barrett's organization if the proposed
legislation was made law tomorrow.
MR. BENNETT answered, "Baby steps." He said once legislation
passes, the company would help Alaska acquire [equipment], while
not as expensive as the $30 million ones previously mentioned,
something that will work in Alaska in a centralized location
accessible to farmers.
3:22:29 PM
WES SCHACHT, Alaska Cannabis Advocacy, spoke to the long history
of hemp being grown in American agriculture even before the
inception of [the United States]. He shared that both sides of
his ancestry raised hemp. He stated, "It's also helped the
American economy off and on for years - Revolutionary War, Civil
War - it was required by every farmer over five acres of land to
raise one acre of industrial hemp, and to outlaw it and not have
its production is ludicrous."
MR. SCHACHT said there are many uses for hemp, including [the
prevention of] soil erosion, the use of its fibers for building
materials, the use of its oil "for everything from edible oil to
bird seed." He urged everyone to read a pamphlet about
industrial hemp [included in the committee packet] to learn
about the product. He stated, "I find it really inane that
we're allowed to grow psychoactive cannabis but not industrial
hemp." He indicated that [the worst thing that could result]
from smoking hemp is "a headache or sore lungs."
3:23:57 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR commented on the historical aspect of agriculture
and its renaissance.
3:24:57 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR closed public testimony on HB 172.
3:25:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER prefaced his query by stating that he is
not "against this bill." He then asked for confirmation that
the Division of Agriculture would "draw the regulations."
3:27:00 PM
ROBERT CARTER, Manager, Plant Materials Center (PMC), Division
of Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), answered
that it is DNR's intent to draft the regulations that would be
needed upon passage of HB 172 to "make this a sustainable
program for ... those interested all around the state of
Alaska." He indicated that because [industrial hemp] is "guilty
by association" with recreational marijuana, the department
wants to ensure a good foundation so that the industrial hemp
industry can grow.
3:28:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for comment regarding the three
zero fiscal notes.
3:29:42 PM
PATRICK FITZGERALD, Staff, Representative Harriet Drummond,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Drummond,
prime sponsor of HB 172, acknowledged that one of the fiscal
notes states that the proposed legislation would regulate
industrial hemp through the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC). He explained that that was a mistake and,
when corrected, there will still be three zero fiscal notes, but
the [corrected] fiscal note will reflect that "the regulations
will be under the Division of Agriculture."
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER indicated that he would like to hear
from the division, because "we're looking for something else
here."
3:30:41 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR suggested that the drafting of regulations is
something that [the Division of Agriculture] does within its
"existing scope of work."
MR. CARTER responded, "Wonderfully said." He added that from
the standpoint of PMC, once a crop has been deemed agricultural,
it becomes the purview of the Division of Agriculture, which
takes on the responsibility of supporting agricultural industry
in Alaska.
3:32:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH cited language at the top of page 3, of HB
172, which says that "the state may create and administer an
agricultural pilot program to study growth, cultivation and
marketing of industrial hemp." He suggested it may be useful to
set a fee schedule to finance such a pilot program "so that we
could be doing research as we're ... charging forward,"
3:33:18 PM
MR. FITZGERALD responded, "That's the idea of the pilot
program."
CO-CHAIR TARR asked Mr. Fitzgerald if he meant that [the pilot
program] would be "self-funded through the fees."
MR. FITZGERALD confirmed that "the fees would ... produce the
funds in order to conduct the studies through ... [the pilot
program]."
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH offered his understanding that there would
be allowance for regulating the industry, but not for the pilot
program.
MR. FITZGERALD responded, "I will take a look at the Section
76.06 of the farm bill, and I will follow up with that."
3:34:13 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR reopened public testimony on HB 172.
3:34:18 PM
GEORGE PIERCE recommended the committee take a look at a web
site, called "information distillery." He said [industrial
hemp] is not like marijuana; it cannot make someone high. He
advised the committee that hemp is one of the most useful plants
on earth, with the following attributes: the ability to enrich
the soil where it is grown; seeds that are an excellent source
of minerals, protein, and dietary fiber; and a source of all
essential fatty and amino acids.
MR. PIERCE noted that many individuals eat fish as a source of
essential fats, but because of concern about commercial
overfishing and possible chemical contaminants, many have chosen
to switch to hemp. He said hemp is also good for animals and
can be used for body care and papermaking. He relayed that the
first American Flag was made from hemp. Mr. Pierce said hemp is
also good for: fiber, textile, rope, petroleum, and to "replace
gasoline for diesel engines." He called the product "amazing."
MR. PIERCE restated the safe nature of hemp and repeated his
recommendation about the information distillery. He noted that
hemp is a renewable resource, as well as being a source of
income, of which he said the state is in need.
CO-CHAIR TARR said that as a botanist, she is familiar with the
many uses of hemp, and she expressed appreciation to Mr. Pierce
for his comments.
3:37:39 PM
ED MARTIN, JR. said he currently owns property in Sterling
Alaska, which would be available for growing both marijuana and
hemp; however, he pointed out that he and his wife are not
allowed to get a license to grow in Alaska, because although
they have been residents in Alaska for many years, they do not
apply for the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD). He
expressed hope that there would not be "a requirement for a
protection racket in the industry to just Alaskans" under HB
172. He said he had pleaded with the legislature to review
administrative regulations related to marijuana law.
MR. MARTIN said there is a distinction between [marijuana law
and law pertaining to hemp] and both are "revenue getters" for
Alaska. He talked about the efforts on the House floor to state
spending. He indicated that the sale of land could result in
the ability to grow more product and create both jobs and
revenue for the state. He said many legislators "voted against
cutting government," and he urged legislators to "be responsible
and create an industry that'll create revenue for the state."
MR. MARTIN explained that he has to be out of state during the
winter for medical reasons but is "every bit of an Alaskan" and
will defend [the state's] constitution and individual and
property rights. He urged the committee, "Please look at this."
CO-CHAIR TARR said the reason the committee is hearing HB 172 is
that it would provide an opportunity for Alaska. She noted that
following the bill hearing, the committee would segue into a
presentation related to access to agricultural land. She
offered her understanding that Representative Talerico had
introduced a bill on the topic of getting more Alaskans access
to some of the state-owned land.
3:41:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked Mr. Martin to expound on his
comment about licenses being limited to residents of Alaska.
She said she knows that licenses for marijuana businesses have
been limited to Alaskans, because "the department is trying to
keep outside influence out of our local marijuana business."
3:41:56 PM
MR. MARTIN responded that when regulations were passed for
marijuana growth or sale, there was a requirement that [growers
and sellers] must be PFD applicants. He said he and his wife
left Alaska in 2004, but he reemphasized his commitment to
Alaska. He indicated that he had served in the military and was
involved in rebuilding training facilities in Hawaii. He said
he has no desire to live year-round in Alaska any more, but he
claimed that does not make him any less Alaskan.
MR. MARTIN said under current law pertaining to PFD
qualifications, [Alaskan residents] are allowed to be out of the
state for six months. He indicated that representatives working
for the Alaska Permanent Fund Division informed him that he
could "go back to 2006 and maybe apply for that." He said he
doesn't necessarily wish to do that, but he is being barred from
entering into business in Alaska. He said he is "somewhat
upset" about Representative Mike Chenault having worked to do
away with the Administrative Review Committee, because "you
folks should be reviewing those regulations to see how they
violate people like my wife and our individual liberty to be in
business in our own state." He said he and his wife pay taxes
in both Alaska and Hawaii, but his heart is and always will be
in Alaska. He urged the committee not to pass legislation that
would bar him and his wife from entering in to commerce in their
own state.
3:44:43 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR re-closed public testimony on HB 172.
[HB 172 was held over.]
^PRESENTATION(S) AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES IN ALASKA
PRESENTATION(S) AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES IN ALASKA
3:44:51 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the next order of business would be
a presentation regarding agriculture activities in Alaska.
3:45:25 PM
ARTHUR KEYES, Acting Director, Division of Agriculture,
Department of Natural Resources, gave a presentation regarding
agricultural activities in Alaska. He listed some of the
positive agriculture activities in Alaska: farmers market
growth leading the nation per capita and up from 13 markets in
2005 to 42 markets today; a thriving peony industry with "the
number of stems exported exceeding expectations"; grain
production expanding statewide; rhodiola and hops growing in
popularity and viability; and a "positive outlook in agriculture
right now in Alaska."
MR. KEYES noted that hops are an important component in brewing
and are one of the fastest growing segments in the food
industry. He said Alaska-grown hops can garner $60-$80 per
pound. He said hops is a cousin plant to marijuana and both
have "day-length issues." The special greenhouses that allow
marijuana producers to control day length could be used to grow
a dwarf hops worth a considerable sum of money. Regarding
livestock, he noted that "production is up." He reported that
Mount McKinley Meat & Sausage had one of its most successful
years, at "$77,000 ahead," and one of the reasons is that there
is a surge in livestock being used.
3:48:48 PM
MR. KEYES shared some of his "goals and visions for
agriculture." He said he would like to see improved access to
agricultural lands for young farmers, who may have ample energy
but a paucity of funds, and to that end, the division has an
agricultural land sale program. He shared that he is an
entrepreneur and farmer, and he emphasized the importance of
young people entering into farming.
MR. KEYES indicated that historically agricultural parcels are
at least 160 acres, and there is a requirement that the farmer
must clear 40 percent of the farmable soil. He said clearing
land is arduous. He said he is proposing a change in the
requirement so that smaller agricultural pieces would abut
larger agricultural pieces and be made available for sale to
younger farmers to develop without going hundreds of thousands
of dollars in debt. Then, once the farmers have developed the
land, they could come back to the division for more land, which
the division would have kept open, and the farmers would be
given "a preference to expand their farm into that." Mr. Keyes
estimated the parcels would be about 10-20 acres in size. He
called this "a cultural shift" and said that "it will take years
to see the fruits of this."
3:51:44 PM
MR. KEYES stated that he would like to see the division help
small farmers enter wholesale markets, including Safeway and
Fred Meyer. He said he personally jumped through the hurdles to
enter retail stores as a wholesale producer, and it is
"cumbersome" and "frustrating." He offered his belief that the
division has the ability to help the farmer in this process. He
said that farmers have the potential to make "some instant
retail money" with farmers markets, and "as their operation
grows, that they would want access to that."
3:52:37 PM
MR. KEYES described some of the important activities in which
the division is involved to assist farming in Alaska. He said
the Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund (ARLF) is managed by the
Board of Agriculture and Conservation. He related that the
aforementioned Mount McKinley Meat & Sausage facility falls
under the purview of ARLF, managed by the division. He said the
loan fund is managed by farmers. Farmers sometimes have to
borrow money for a few years in a row to get their initial crop
going, and Mr. Keyes said they are essentially spreading that
investment on the ground, with the collateral being the crop
that is being grown. He said typical bankers doing auto or
mortgage loans may think that is absurd; therefore, it is
advantageous to have farmers on the board, who are uniquely
suited to review loan applications. The current default rate of
ARLF is "below the traditional banking standard," he said.
MR. KEYES stated that PMC provides certified, clean, disease-
free seed potatoes, grass seed, and grain seed. He described
the facility as "one of the best kept secrets in Alaska." He
emphasized that the center's work is important and must
continue, and he predicted that PMC will play a critical role.
3:55:43 PM
MR. KEYES stated his belief that as long as people continue to
be concerned about their health and their families, "local
agriculture has a bright future." He said agriculture is a
strategic industry. He offered his understanding that during a
presentation he had heard given by Bryce Wrigley (ph), that man
had said that when Hurricane Katrina occurred, it took two weeks
to get food into [New Orleans, Louisiana]. Mr. Keyes exclaimed
that "they're connected to American" and "have one of the
largest ports in the nation." He questioned, "If they went
through that in New Orleans, what would we go through ... in a
time of crisis?" He stated that agriculture in Alaska is a
strategic, economic, health, and community issue.
MR. KEYES, in conclusion, stated, "Nothing has a greater impact
on the quality of a person's life than the food they eat."
3:57:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for information regarding farmers
borrowing money.
MR. KEYS responded that he has farmed successfully for 10 years
without borrowing money, which he described as more work but
with greater rewards. He indicated that the farmers that borrow
money range across all economic levels, and he knows some smart
and successful farmers whose plan includes borrowing every year.
He stated that not everyone has to borrow money, but it is a
resource that needs to be available, and he called the borrowing
of money a tool. In response to a follow-up question, he said
he has heard that borrowing money through a traditional bank can
be difficult, and currently there are three lending agencies
within Alaska: the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), ARLF, and through private means.
4:01:06 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR remarked that if it were easy to get a loan, she
would be farming right now.
4:01:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE mentioned the term "uplift," as it is
used in discussing "mere oil, rather than crude." He suggested
that if it is the state's land that is being sold [to farmers],
then perhaps [the state] could consider uplift, in relation to
[farmers] "starting to buy the next piece of incremental."
4:01:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed appreciation for Mr. Keyes'
enthusiasm. Regarding the revolving loan fund, she asked if the
Alaska Commercial Agriculture and Fishing Bank is "of any
assistance at all in this area" or "duplicative" or a "totally
separate institution."
MR. KEYS answered that although he has heard of the bank, he
doesn't know anything about it; however, he offered to find out
more information.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH offered thanks "to the director and my
colleague from Sutton (ph)."
4:02:54 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR asked Mr. Keyes to share the average age of the
Alaskan farmer, in order to "underscore the importance of
getting people involved in agriculture."
MR. KEYES offered his understanding that it is 57.
CO-CHAIR TARR opined that it should be made known to Alaskans
the opportunities available in agriculture.
MR. KEYES said feeding people is a billion-dollar industry in
Alaska. He continued:
There is nothing but opportunity to take those food
dollars away from the California farmers or Mexican
[farmers] or whatever. You know, no ... offense to
them - they do a great job of feeding us. But as ...
a producer and a farmer ... I've never felt like I was
competing with my neighbor or ... my vendors at the
farmers market ...; I felt like we were complementing
each other in going after something that was very
vulnerable for us to take away.
^PRESENTATION(S): NENANA AGRICULTURE LAND
PRESENTATION(S): NENANA AGRICULTURE LAND
4:04:27 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the final order of business would
be the presentation about Nenana Agriculture Land.
4:05:36 PM
ELIJAH VERHAGEN, Staff, Representative Dave Talerico, Alaska
State Legislature, gave a PowerPoint presentation, "Nenana
Totchaket Bridge To Resources," on behalf of Representative
Talerico. [A hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation is
included in the committee packet.] He noted that the City of
Nenana is located approximately "45 minutes down the Parks
Highway" from Fairbanks, Alaska.
MR. VERHAGEN pointed out the farmland of Nenana, as shown in an
aerial photograph on slide 2 of the PowerPoint, and he said
Nenana is not currently described as a farming community,
although there are many farms there. Mr. Verhagen shared that
he had bailed hay in Nenana as a youth. He said Nenana has
wheat, potato, and peony farms, and the farming there has the
potential to expand. As shown on slide 3, he pointed to an area
across the Nenana River where there is access to agricultural
land.
4:07:06 PM
MR. VERHAGEN turned to slide 4, and he stated that the Nenana
Totchaket State Agricultural Project comprises approximately
133,000 acres starting on the Totchaket right-of-way road.
4:08:30 PM
ARTHUR KEYS, Director, Division of Agriculture, Department of
Natural Resources, stated, "This area has an advantage over
other agriculture areas." He directed attention to slide 5 and
pointed to Fairbanks and the project on a map, and he estimated
"it's about a 45-minute drive," which he opined is "financially
viable ... for a young farmer to start a farm and get to the
market." He noted that slide 4 had listed "class 4 soils." He
offered his understanding that the area has 100,000 acres of the
type of soil that would be viable for an agricultural project
and, thus, that the division would be "looking to sell." He
added that the conditions of the soil can be determined once the
land is cleared.
4:10:39 PM
MR. KEYS directed attention to slide 7 to show an example of
what an agriculture project would look like for a young farmer
clearing land, farming, and eventually being able to expand the
farm. He talked about 10-20 acres being an access road and the
two 10-acre "chunks on each corner" [of the chart] reflects
ground that is not set up for agricultural purposes, but instead
a development area holding some type of service area needed,
such as a machine shop or gas station. He indicated that the
graph shows how expansion goes to 20-acre parcels and then to
40-acre parcels. He said all the parcels could be sold to
people who intend to farm them and there would be some success,
though not 100 percent. He said, "That's what you would
encourage after ... a few years and just keep ... that success
growing."
4:12:18 PM
MR. VERHAGEN commented that there are many people excited to
access this land. He informed the committee that he was born
and raised in Nenana. He related that he knows a farmer from
Idaho, who has moved to Nenana, bought an existing farm, and is
now farming potatoes for a third year, because "the market's
better to sell potatoes here."
4:11:36 PM
MR. KEYS, in response to a question from Representative
Rauscher, stated his intent is for the smaller parcels to be
sold first and for the 40-acre and 80-acre parcels to be held
back. He said certainly there are no restrictions that would
keep a farmer from selling his/her farm, but the next owner will
be under the same stipulations. One person could buy up all the
land, and he said he would assume anyone who did that would
intend to farm the land, because "it's not a resort investment."
He stated, "If they could farm it all, ... more power to them."
He said the division has sold land as large as 600 acres; there
are farmers in Delta Junction who own thousands of acres. In
response to a follow-up question, he said he thinks the division
needs to offer smaller parcels for young people [to get a start
in farming]. He reiterated that he did not borrow money for his
farm; however, he stated that he thinks it is much wiser to go
into debt to farm 20 acres than to farm 200 acres.
4:16:30 PM
MR. VERHAGEN drew attention to slide 8, which list other land
owners besides the state. He said, "Once this bridge is
complete ..., it'll open up to over 600,000 state acres, 133,000
of which are the designated [agriculture] land." He said the
Toghothele Native Corporation owns 40,000 acres; Alaska Mental
Health Trust Land is 11,000 acres, and the University of Alaska
land is 640 acres. He interjected that [Representative
Talerico's office] has received over eight letters of support.
He continued to slide 9, which shows where the land owners are
located on a map. He said once the bridge is built, there will
be access to the agricultural land, and [land] can be sold as
the road is extended on the right-of-way.
4:19:17 PM
MR. VERHAGEN moved on to slides 10-14, showing the existing
[dirt] road, aerial views depicting the already existing Little
Nenana Bridge, and remaining on-site materials. Mr. Verhagen
explained that work was delayed because ice gave way as a result
of a warmer than usual winter; therefore, there is one more
piling to install. The individual shown on slide 14 is the
mayor of Nenana, Jason Mayrand, who has "headed up this
project."
MR. VERHAGEN turned to slides 15-16 and said the inception of
the project was in the 1980s; the right-of-way was obtained
through DNR in 1984; 11 miles of road and 3 small bridges were
built in 2008-2009; the required National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) document was completed and submitted to the
United States Coast Guard (USCG) for the required permit [in
March 2014]; there has been funding of just over $6 million; and
a grant of $3 million made it possible to extend the road from 4
to approximately 15 miles.
4:22:12 PM
MR. VERHAGEN directed attention to slide 17, which offers a
summary, including that: the project has great potential for
the entire state; the governor of Alaska has been participating;
and letters of support were received, including from Doyon,
Limited ("Doyon"), Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), Nenana Native
Council, and the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority. He
stated that completion of the bridge would bring access to the
land, which could be used for many things, including as a source
of timber. Referring to slide 17, Mr. Verhagen relayed that the
City of Nenana has been waiting a long time for the bridge
permit; the governor and the commissioner of DNR have both
spoken with the USCG admiral, who has said the remaining permit
will be issued in June [2017]; and [the City of Nenana] is
currently looking to secure the remaining necessary funds.
4:23:50 PM
WYNN MENEFEE, Deputy Director, Trust Land Office (TLO), Alaska
Mental Health Trust Authority, stated that TLO is supportive of
the bridge, because it would open up the trust's land for
extracting various resources, as well as for selling land, which
in turn would benefit the beneficiaries of the trust.
4:24:25 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR offered her understanding that the permit status
had been holding the project back, but now that status has been
resolved. She asked if a letter of support from the House
Resources Standing Committee would be beneficial.
4:25:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO answered that it would, although he said
he is "feeling pretty comfortable that we're kind of on the
right direction for the permit." He said all the information
has been provided to Alaska's congressional delegates, because
"there is money involved to get the rest of the bridge up." He
said he doesn't like the term "shovel ready" projects, because
it does not convey the worth of a project. The project being
proposed benefits many, including the state, the Alaska Mental
Health Trust Authority, the University of Alaska, and a local
village corporation. He said there are about 100,000 people in
the North Star Borough; it is hub; and [the project could result
in] fresh food versus shipped food. He indicated that the
congressional delegation involvement is likely necessary. He
expressed appreciation for the previously mentioned groups in
support of the project, as well as for local farmers. He
emphasized that although the area is not yet known for farming,
there are Yupik farmers in Nenana who offer produce that people
can come pick themselves. There is also a successful tree farm.
He said he is excited about "the 100,000 potential acres." He
talked about the idea of creating an opportunity for people to
attach their PFDs to the purchase of land in order to create a
business.
4:29:04 PM
MR. VERHAGEN added that Nenana has for some time been known as a
hub for transportation: the railroad goes through the area;
there are three barge lines there that ship to rural areas; and
the Parks Highway reaches Nenana.
4:29:29 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR expressed interest in having the committee write a
letter in support of the project and submit it to the
congressional delegation, as well as to any other interested
parties.
4:30:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked if the intention is to finance the
bridge with federal and private monies.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO answered, "We are really hoping that ...
somehow or another we will get that support in an effort from
them to help us step forward." He remarked on the resiliency of
the community of Nenana, which has withstood floods and "big
changes." He shared that the City of Nenana is one of the
oldest in state, and he characterized its residents as "a great
group of people." He surmised that there are probably enough
young people in Nenana that could "turn into a farming
workforce" and "make this go." He said there are local sawmills
that can use the white spruce timber that would have to be
cleared before the land could be farmed.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked for information regarding
exploratory wells in the area.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO deferred to Mr. Verhagen.
4:32:15 PM
MR. VERHAGEN stated that Doyon has been drilling for oil and gas
in the area for years, mostly on its land, but also on some
leased state lands. He said Doyon has built 11 miles of the
road with its own money, as well as having built the three
smaller bridges to access the oil and gas. He said the company
is "very excited for this to move forward." He said the company
has three wells and has found "caves," which he explained are
empty wells. He stated, "They're ... investing a lot because
they ... believe they're going to ... find what they're looking
for."
4:33:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO added that one critical component to
agriculture is having a source of water, and there is plenty of
water in the area.
4:33:41 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR invited Representative Talerico to draft a letter
for the House Resources Standing Committee's consideration.
4:34:12 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:34 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB019 Sponsor Statement 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Ver A 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Ver D 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Fiscal Note - DEC - SWM 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Supporting Document - Beyond Pesticides 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Supporting Document - Center Food Safety 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - Scott Lawrence 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Supporting Document - Letter of Support ACAT 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Supporting Document - Letter of Support Yarducopia 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Supporting Document - Letters of Support 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB046 Sponsor Statement 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB046 Ver J 3.14.17.PDF |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB046 Fiscal Note - DOA - DGS 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB046 Fiscal Note - DNR - AGS 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB046 Supporting Docuemnt - A Performance Audit of the Alaska Agriculture and Fisheries Products Preference.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB046 Supporting Document-AlaskaAgFacts08.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB046 Supporting Document-Articles 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB172 Sponsor Statement 3.13.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Ver A 3.14.17.PDF |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Fiscal Note -DCCED-AMCO 3.13.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Fiscal Note - LAW-CRIM 3.13.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Fiscal Note - DNR-PMC 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Section Analysis 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - Letter of support-Constance Fredenberg 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - Letter of Support-Jack Bennett 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - 2014 Farm Bill Sec. 7606 3.15.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - Kenai Peninsula Borough 3.15.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - Industrial Hemp Updated Slide Presentation 3.15.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - Modern-uses-for-cannabis-Chart3-640x453 3.15.17.jpg |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| Nenana Totchaket Bridge To Resources Presentation.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |