Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
05/10/2022 08:00 AM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB177 | |
| HB120 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 10, 2022
3:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Josiah Patkotak, Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Zack Fields
Representative Calvin Schrage
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Ronald Gillham
Representative Tom McKay
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 177(RES)
"An Act relating to nuclear facility siting permits; and
relating to microreactors."
- MOVED CSSB 177(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 120
"An Act relating to state land; relating to the authority of the
Department of Education and Early Development to dispose of
state land; relating to the authority of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities to dispose of state land;
relating to the authority of the Department of Natural Resources
over certain state land; relating to the state land disposal
income fund; relating to the leasing and sale of state land for
commercial development; repealing establishment of recreation
rivers and recreation river corridors; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 120(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 177
SHORT TITLE: MICROREACTORS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/01/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/01/22 (S) CRA, RES
02/15/22 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/15/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/15/22 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
02/17/22 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/17/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/17/22 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/08/22 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/08/22 (S) Moved SB 177 Out of Committee
03/08/22 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/09/22 (S) CRA RPT 1DP 3NR
03/09/22 (S) DP: HUGHES
03/09/22 (S) NR: GRAY-JACKSON, MYERS, WILSON
03/21/22 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/21/22 (S) Heard & Held
03/21/22 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/06/22 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/06/22 (S) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 4/8/22>
04/08/22 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/08/22 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/11/22 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/11/22 (S) Heard & Held
04/11/22 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/20/22 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/20/22 (S) Moved CSSB 177(RES) Out of Committee
04/20/22 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/22/22 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP 1NR 1AM NEW TITLE
04/22/22 (S) DP: REVAK, KIEHL, VON IMHOF, MICCICHE
04/22/22 (S) NR: STEVENS
04/22/22 (S) AM: KAWASAKI
05/04/22 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/04/22 (S) VERSION: CSSB 177(RES)
05/05/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/05/22 (H) RES
05/09/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
05/09/22 (H) Heard & Held
05/09/22 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/10/22 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 120
SHORT TITLE: STATE LAND SALES AND LEASES; RIVERS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/01/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/01/21 (H) RES, FIN
04/30/21 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/30/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/30/21 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/12/21 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
05/12/21 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
05/13/21 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
05/13/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/13/21 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/02/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
05/02/22 (H) Heard & Held
05/02/22 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/04/22 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM ADAMS 519
05/04/22 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
05/06/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
05/06/22 (H) Heard & Held
05/06/22 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/09/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
05/09/22 (H) Heard & Held
05/09/22 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/10/22 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding CSSB 177(RES)
on behalf of the bill sponsor, Senate Rules Standing Committee,
by request of the governor.
GWEN HOLDMAN, Director
Alaska Center for Energy and Power
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSSB 177(RES),
answered questions.
BRENT GOODRUM, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 120, provided
comments on behalf of DNR and answered questions.
CRIS HESS, Deputy Director
Division of Land, Mining and Water
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 120, answered
questions.
CHRISTOPHER ORMAN, Attorney
Civil Division-Juneau
Natural Resources Section
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 120, answered a
question.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Legislative Counsel
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Agencies and Offices
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 120, answered
questions.
THATCHER BROUWER, Staff
Representative Geran Tarr
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 120, presented
Amendment 7 on behalf of Representative Rauscher.
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 120, explained
Amendment 7.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:05:27 PM
CHAIR JOSIAH PATKOTAK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting back to order at 3:05 p.m. [On 5/9/23 the
committee recessed to 8 a.m. on 5/10/23, which was subsequently
delayed to 3 p.m.] Representatives Fields, Schrage, Hannan,
Rauscher, Cronk, Gillham, McKay, Fields, and Patkotak were
present at the call back to order.
SB 177-MICROREACTORS
3:05:56 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 177(RES), "An Act relating to nuclear
facility siting permits; and relating to microreactors."
3:06:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
CSSB 177(RES) [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
"all cities and boroughs must approve a site for a
microreactor before DEC can permit it, except for
unorganized boroughs in which siting is the
responsibility of the legislature."
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:06:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS explained Conceptual Amendment 1. He said
the Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC's) letter
responding to questions about local authority over the siting of
microreactors states it is the bill's intent that local
governments do maintain siting authority regardless of the type
of borough or municipality. He noted that cities and boroughs
with planning and zoning already have this authority so [the
bill] is not changing anything. However, he continued, DEC
acknowledged some ambiguity for local governments which don't
currently have planning and zoning authority. He related that
the concept of Conceptual Amendment 1 is that in jurisdictions
which don't currently have planning and zoning authority,
comfort would be given to citizens who are concerned about the
bill that their local government is going to have siting
authority. He said he understands DEC's answer to be that the
local governments will have that authority anyway and therefore
Conceptual Amendment 1 is a clarifying amendment.
3:08:29 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK invited DEC to provide context to the follow-up
letter referenced by Representative Fields [provided in the
committee packet] and to address the amendment.
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), spoke to the
question from Representative Fields about the siting requirement
for the Municipality of Anchorage. She said the current
language in AS 18.45.025(c) includes the requirement that a DEC
permit may not be issued until the municipality with
jurisdiction over the proposed facility site has approved that
permit. So, she advised, if DEC was looking at approving a
microreactor site within the Municipality of Anchorage, the
department would require that the municipality approve that
before DEC would approve its permit, and that would not change
under SB 177. She apologized for not having had a chance to
read Conceptual Amendment 1.
3:10:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS agreed with Ms. Carpenter that it is clear
Anchorage, Juneau, and the larger jurisdictions already have the
siting authority, which he supports. He explained Conceptual
Amendment 1 was designed to confirm that local jurisdictions
which are organized but do not currently have planning and
zoning authority, do still have siting authority. He read aloud
Conceptual Amendment 1 and said he attempted to write the
amendment to be consistent with DEC's understanding of the bill
but provide clarity where DEC's memo suggested there is some
ambiguity with the current language.
3:11:50 PM
GWEN HOLDMAN, Director, Alaska Center for Energy and Power,
University of Alaska Fairbanks, stated she has been serving as a
technical advisor on microreactors on behalf of the
administration. She said this question has come up in her
discussions with different stakeholders and constituents around
the state. She noted she doesn't claim to be an expert in this
area, but said her understanding is that an organized
municipality can delegate this kind of authority to a planning
committee but if that committee doesn't exist that authority is
retained by the organizing city council or borough assembly.
She related that this has also come up with renewable energy
projects and siting authority related to those, so she knows
that that is the process for a place which does not have a
planning committee. She said she understands that the intent of
the conceptual amendment is to clarify what the bill states, but
offered her opinion that the language is not needed and doesn't
add anything to her interpretation of the bill.
3:13:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE opined that the bill is clear as written.
He said listening to the department's response gives him some
relief. He inquired whether, with the amendment, the City of
Fairbanks and the Fairbanks North Star Borough would both have
to approve [a siting].
3:13:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS responded he is trying to specifically
address the statement in the DEC memo that says, "Arguably the
bill provides local governments with a specific grant of
authority to approve these permits outside the planning
process." He maintained that this statement has a degree of
ambiguity. He said the letter continues with the statement, "As
a practical matter a municipality might be able to solicit
assistance." He related that the letter also says that the
statute does not require the municipality to have the zoning
authority, only that the municipality must provide approval. He
said it seems, given these statements, that it is the
understanding of DEC that municipalities probably have this
authority, and he thinks they should, and they do have an
agreement with Ms. Holdman. He said he will support the bill
anyway but would like to clear up any ambiguity and give
citizens some assurance that their local government retains
jurisdiction over siting.
3:15:11 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated he falls back to the comfort of the
current statute and added that the conceptual amendment is last
minute. He said the DEC letter speaks to AS 18.45.025(c) which
states that the permit may not be issued until the municipality
with jurisdiction over the proposed facility site has approved
the permit. So, he continued, that covers municipalities and
cities that have elected to adopt planning and zoning. He
offered his understanding that the discussion point here is that
unorganized cities or organized cities or boroughs that are
lower class that don't retain planning and zoning permitting
authority still have some sort of backstop versus it being a
full legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS confirmed that that is the intent of the
proposed conceptual amendment.
3:16:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS related that his home municipality of
Fairbanks has planning and zoning powers but not economic
development powers or utility powers. He said he will be
supporting Conceptual Amendment 1 because, while it does say it
in the DEC memo, double clarification from the amendment would
be key so there is not some ambiguity in the future that a
second-class borough without specific powers is excluded from
the requirement. It would not be detracting or hurting the
bill, he continued, it would just be making it clear.
3:17:49 PM
MS. HOLDMAN, in reference to the words siting and permitting,
advised that it needs to be clear in the amendment that
communities retain siting authority over a project and that the
permitting of a project is the purview of DEC as well as the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). She suggested that
if the committee chooses to move forward with the amendment, the
draft language be adjusted to ensure it's clear that it's the
siting authority that is being retained by the local government,
not the approval of the permit.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS responded that that is consistent with his
intent that the local jurisdiction pertains to siting.
3:19:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said he supports the intent of Conceptual
Amendment 1 but isn't comfortable with the language and working
so quickly. He stated he would like to get the perspective of
Legislative Legal Services and clarify with DEC. He encouraged
taking the route of a floor amendment and said that he cannot
support the amendment.
3:19:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised DEC has already started drafting
regulations that it anticipates needing if the bill becomes law.
She noted that in most state agencies which permit, it is an
affirmative process whereby the agency says yes once thresholds
have been met. She asked whether DEC is contemplating in its
regulatory package what analysis it would do regarding community
decisions and siting. For example, whether a community saying
yes to a specific project in a specific location would be
considered to be within DEC's oversight of the siting or whether
DEC would do [its own] analysis with considerations such as
earthquakes and tsunami hazards.
MS. CARPENTER replied that DEC has not started the regulation
package but has discussed what is anticipated in a draft
regulation package. She said this would include provisions of
what criteria had to be met before DEC could issue a permit,
such as local participation, the permit application review, and
local approval of DEC's permit. Regulations, she continued,
would include such things as minimum setback requirements from
homes or property lines if applicable, surface water, and
drinking water supply. She advised that the applicant would
also be required to identify any potential releases or impacts
to land, air, or water. She offered her understanding that
tsunami and earthquake evaluations are part of the USNRC permit
application process.
3:22:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS addressed Representative Schrage's point.
He said if Conceptual Amendment 1 is adopted, Legislative Legal
Services would write it because there would be a motion for
technical changes. He said he is willing to have the amendment
adopted now or to withdraw it and offer it on the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded that the amendment is unclear
as to whether it would be the cities or whether it would be the
cities and the boroughs, and he is concerned about a duplicative
approval process.
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated he is in support of something on the floor
because, as the bill is, there has been a lot of work regarding
recognizing the powers and preference of the different cities
and places.
3:24:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1.
3:24:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY asked whether the reactor for Eielson Air
Force Base has been sited and whether DEC or the Fairbanks North
Star Borough have been involved in that.
MS. HOLDMAN answered that the Eielson project is located
jurisdictionally within the Fairbanks North Star Borough. She
offered her understanding that it will be the borough that will
make the decision whether to approve the siting of the project
within the borough assembly or at the advice of the borough's
planning committee.
3:25:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN observed that the DEC fiscal note does not
anticipate any new money being needed to develop supervision of
microreactor permitting. She asked whether DEC is anticipating
a job class with people who have nuclear science or nuclear
engineering in their background or whether this will be absorbed
with the kinds of staff currently within the department.
3:26:53 PM
MS. CARPENTER responded that DEC put forward a zero fiscal note
in recognition that its microreactors are multiple years out.
At this point, she stated, she doesn't have an idea of the job
class or staffing requirements that will be needed. But, she
continued, it is noted that DEC can soon begin working on the
regulations package with existing staff because the department
has the support of Ms. Holdman's staff and the various national
laboratories that can assist DEC with the drafting of those
regulations. She specified that once the facility is permitted
in the state, it is subject to oversight by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
3:27:55 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested Ms. Carpenter to make the department's
closing comments.
MS. CARPENTER offered her appreciation to the committee for
hearing CSSB 177(RES) and urged the committee's support for
passing the bill.
3:28:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to report CSSB 177(RES) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
[zero] fiscal note.
3:28:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN objected and said she will be voting no.
She related that she wishes the committee was talking about a
specific project, such as the Eielson project and the siting of
that project, because of the many concerns that have been
brought to her. She noted that on an active U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD) installation, some of the concerns about
oversight, security, and waste management would be addressed
because of the secured nature of a military site. She said the
state doesn't have the expertise in place and if Alaska had one
successful project then looking to change the law to make it
easier for multiple jurisdictions to do it would be a logical
step. No one has attempted to site a nuclear project in Alaska
using the current statute, she continued, yet it is being
attempted to throw it out. Representative Hannan said Alaska
has 150-plus local jurisdictions that will get to weigh in and
is going to trust the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory [Commission] to be
the state's experts and have the state's best interests at
heart. Things don't follow in a rational story of how the state
should be acting, she opined, so right now she is vehemently
opposed to the bill, but not to microreactors. She added that
need has been demonstrated to change [the law] and it is
premature.
3:31:02 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK said he appreciates the scrutiny of a case-by-
case basis and would like to see this brought forward.
3:31:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered his understanding that this
process is a long way off and he doesn't think a lot of
communities will be rushing in right away. He said he believes
there will be scrutiny on the military base microreactor and the
microreactor in his community of Valdez. Alaska is a great
testing ground for this program, he opined, and it should be
helped along to see how it works out. He said he would vote
yes.
3:32:38 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McKay, Fields,
Cronk, Hopkins, Rauscher, Gillham, Schrage, and Patkotak voted
in favor of moving CSSB 177(RES) out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying [zero] fiscal
note. Representative Hannan voted against it. Therefore, CSSB
177(RES) was reported out of the House Resources Standing
Committee by a vote of 8-1.
HB 120-STATE LAND SALES AND LEASES; RIVERS
3:33:46 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 120, "An Act relating to state land; relating
to the authority of the Department of Education and Early
Development to dispose of state land; relating to the authority
of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to
dispose of state land; relating to the authority of the
Department of Natural Resources over certain state land;
relating to the state land disposal income fund; relating to the
leasing and sale of state land for commercial development;
repealing establishment of recreation rivers and recreation
river corridors; and providing for an effective date." [Before
the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS),
Version 32-GH1634\G, Bullard, 4/22/22 ("Version G"), adopted as
the working document on 5/2/22.]
CHAIR PATKOTAK noted that the committee worked through several
amendments to Version G of HB 120 on 5/9/22, and today the
committee would consider additional amendments.
3:34:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 4 to Version G of
HB 120, labeled 32-GH1634\G.4, Bullard, 5/9/22, which read:
Page 7, line 22, following "may":
Insert ", subject to (r) of this section,"
Page 8, line 17, following "may":
Insert ", subject to (r) of this section,"
Page 10, line 2, following "purchase.":
Insert "Land sold under this subsection is
subject to the easement described in (r) of this
section."
Page 10, line 31:
Delete "The"
Insert "In addition to the public easement
required under (r) of this section, the"
Page 11, lines 7 - 8:
Delete "In this subsection, "traditional outdoor
activity" has the meaning given in AS 38.04.200."
Page 11, following line 14:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(r) Notwithstanding its lease or sale, for the
benefit of all state residents, state land leased or
sold under this section is subject, at all times, to a
perpetual affirmative public easement that runs with
the land entitling a person to enter and use the land
for subsistence and recreational purposes, including
hunting, fishing, and other traditional outdoor
activities. A person who leases or owns land subject
to the easement imposed by this section is not liable
for the death of or injury to a person who enters or
uses the land for subsistence and recreational
purposes, except when the trier of facts finds that
the person's death or injury is due to intentional,
reckless, or grossly negligent actions of the lessee
or owner of the land. The attorney general shall bring
an action in the name of the state to restrain and
prevent obstruction of entry and use under this
subsection.
(s) In this section, "traditional outdoor activity"
has the meaning given in AS 38.04.200."
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS explained Amendment 4. He noted that a
variety of historic uses have occurred on many of these [state]
lands. He said the uses are diverse, ranging from hunting,
hiking, skiing, snowmachines, and all manner of travel. He said
the amendment would ensure that when the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) liquidates a parcel that historically has been
used by the public, the public will continue to exercise that
access right. He offered his belief that that would be the
appropriate interpretation under current law, but unfortunately
that right has been contested. For example, he continued, the
City of Eagle River allowed for a public right of way to be
vacated, shutting off decades of public access, and in the
Anchorage Hillside area there is currently litigation over a
landowner shutting off historic access.
3:36:44 PM
BRENT GOODRUM, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), spoke to Amendment 4. He
said the amendment is fundamentally counter to the purpose of
this section of the bill, which is to stimulate economic
development in the state. He agreed that access is critically
important to Alaskans but offered his belief that Amendment 4
seeks to constitute a perpetual affirmative easement, and
intentionally creates tension or public conflict and sabotages
the intent of economic development of the land that is being
considered. For example, he continued, 20 acres is being talked
about here for a commercial use activity and if the state has
100,000,000 acres of land, that is 0.0000002 percent of state
land that could be under a commercial activity, a very small
parcel of land. He said he doesn't believe DNR is supportive of
Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS responded that that is not the intent. He
said that while parcels sold under this may be a small percent
of state land, they can be very important to access, the Hatcher
Pass area being one example. He posed a scenario in Hatcher
Pass in which one parcel is sold for a lodge that caters to snow
machine users. He said that could be a benefit if people not
staying at the lodge can continue to snow machine across that
property and access public land. He maintained there can be
development along with public access. He added that he likes
the idea of developing some of these parcels but wants to ensure
that people can still access areas of historical use.
3:40:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY said he appreciates Representative Fields'
intention but is concerned that someone obtaining a parcel of
land in this manner on which a mine deposit or other resource is
developed could make it unsafe for the public to walk through
the development. He said he wouldn't want to have a perpetual
easement where there might be an industrial operation that is
dangerous for the public to be traversing.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS agreed there could be some situations like
this. He said Caribou Creek is an example of an area where
there is active mining development that people pass through, and
it is their responsibility to be safe and not mess with the
private property.
3:42:31 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection.
3:42:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected.
3:42:43 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Schrage, Hannan,
Hopkins, and Fields voted in favor of Amendment 4.
Representatives Rauscher, Cronk, McKay, Gillham, and Patkotak
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 4 failed to be adopted
by a vote of 4-5.
3:43:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 5 to Version G of
HB 120, labeled 32-GH1634\G.6, Bullard, 5/9/22, which read:
Page 11, following line 14:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(r) If the commissioner reserves a public easement
or right-of-way under (p) of this section on or across
land to be disposed of under this section, the
commissioner shall sell the land subject to a
perpetual covenant that runs with the land, for the
benefit of all residents of the state, that requires
the owner of the land to mark and maintain a reserved
public easement or right-of-way on or across the land
in a manner that allows the public to easily recognize
and use the public easement or right-of-way. The
attorney general or an aggrieved person may institute
a civil action, including an action for injunctive
relief, against a person who fails to mark or maintain
a public easement or right-of-way as required by this
subsection."
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS explained Amendment 5 has a similar intent
to preserve public access on a historic route but is different
in that it directs the new owner to show people how to get
across the parcel to access other public land.
3:44:23 PM
MR. GOODRUM spoke to Amendment 5. He said DNR is concerned
about the amendment because it would create a perpetual covenant
and requires either the owner or lessee to mark and maintain the
reserved public easement or right-of-way for use by the public
and to actively maintain that in perpetuity. He noted that the
last part of the provision directs the attorney general or an
aggrieved person to institute civil action. He said that this
is weaponizing the easement that may be placed across this piece
of property. He pointed out that if there is an existing access
in advance on a piece of property, then it is a prior existing
right so that easement would be preserved.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS responded that Amendment 5 doesn't change
the way that the easements have been used historically, rather
it provides clarity that if there is an acquisition the
landowner is not going to shut off historic access. He pointed
out that this has happened in south Anchorage, resulting in a
years-long legal battle with gates being put up and threats with
guns. He argued that it is better to have clarity at the outset
so there is not that friction. He further argued that this is
consistent with historic treatment in law and provides clarity
and predictability to the developer and to the public.
MR. GOODRUM stated that the aforementioned situation may involve
a private parcel that never came to the state or municipality,
it was conveyed by the federal government and access across that
property was likely not a legal access. So, he related, after
users had potentially abused that access and littered the
property, for example, the private landowner felt there was no
other alternative but to block access. He said he is all about
finding solutions for access but believes that that is the
circumstance in this situation.
3:46:53 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection.
3:46:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected.
3:47:19 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fields, Hopkins,
and Hannan, voted in favor of Amendment 5. Representatives
Cronk, Rauscher, Gillham, Schrage, McKay, and Patkotak voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 5 failed to be adopted by a
vote of 3-6.
3:48:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 6 to Version G of
HB 120, labeled 32-GH1634\G.5, Bullard, 5/10/22, which read:
Page 3, following line 18:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 14.07.030 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) In addition to any other notice required by
law, before the department acquires real property or
transfers an interest in real property under (a)(6) of
this section, the department shall provide written
notice, in the manner provided under
AS 38.05.945(b)(1), to each
(1) person who owns real property that is
adjacent to or located within one-half mile of the
real property or interest in real property to be
acquired or transferred; and
(2) municipality or other unit of local
government in which the real property or interest in
real property is located."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, following line 31:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 19.30 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 19.30.085. Notice. In addition to any other
notice required by law, before the director of the
division of lands contracts with a person for the
construction of an access road under AS 19.30.060 -
19.30.100, the director shall provide written notice,
in the manner provided under AS 38.05.945(b)(1), to
each
(1) person who owns real property that is
adjacent to or located within one-half mile of the
area in which the access road is to be constructed;
and
(2) municipality or other unit of local
government in which the access road is to be
constructed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, following line 14:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) In addition to any other notice required by
law, before the department vacates an easement under
(a) of this section or contracts to sell, lease, or
exchange land or rights in land under (b) of this
section, the department shall provide written notice,
in the manner provided under AS 38.05.945(b)(1), to
each
(1) person who owns real property that is
adjacent to or located within one-half mile of the
easement, land, or rights in land; and
(2) municipality or other unit of local
government in which the easement, land, or rights in
land is located."
Page 5, following line 20:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(e) In addition to any other notice required by
law, before the director offers land for sale by
auction or sealed bid under this section, the director
shall provide written notice, in the manner provided
under AS 38.05.945(b)(1), to each
(1) person who owns real property that is
adjacent to or located within one-half mile of the
land to be offered for sale; and
(2) municipality or other unit of local
government in which the land to be offered for sale is
located."
Page 8, lines 9 - 16:
Delete all material and insert:
"In addition to the notice required under AS
38.05.945, the commissioner shall also provide
(1) notice, regardless of whether the land
is located inside or outside a municipality, to a
(A) regional corporation if the boundaries
of the corporation as established by 43 U.S.C. 1606(a)
(sec. 7(a), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act)
encompass the land;
(B) village corporation organized under 43
U.S.C. 1607(a) (sec. 8(a), Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act) if the land is within 25 miles of the
village for which the corporation was established;
(2) written notice to a person who owns
real property that is adjacent to or located within
one-half mile of the land subject to classification or
reclassification under this subsection."
Page 11, line 2, following "governments,":
Insert "persons who own real property that is
adjacent to or located within one-half mile of the
land made available for commercial development,"
Page 11, line 5, following "AS 44.37.011":
Insert "Notice of a proposed easement or right-of-way
provided under this subsection to a person who owns
real property that is adjacent to or located within
one-half mile of the land made available for
commercial development must be in written form."
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS explained Amendment 6. He recounted that
during discussion about the bill he expressed his concern that
posting a potential sale of a property on Alaska's online public
notice system and publishing a notice in a newspaper complies
with the letter of the law. But, he allowed, he has never
checked the online public notice system on a daily basis for
regulations. He said the Mat-Su Frontiersman is an example of a
newspaper of record, but that it isn't read by many people. He
expressed his concern about a large and meaningful parcel being
liquidated with hardly anyone, including the local government,
having heard of it. Amendment 6, he stated, would require DNR
to affirmatively notify people within a half mile of the
property, as well as the local government, of a proposed sale.
This would ensure that DNR has input about the potential
disposition of the property so it can make a decision informed
by the stakeholders who are most affected.
3:49:22 PM
MR. GOODRUM provided DNR's response to Amendment 6. He said the
amendment essentially applies AS 38.05.945, DNR's public notice
requirement, to many other statutes within the law and would
also expand it in a non-consistent manner. He specified that
the one procedural concern he has is potentially a procedural
defect, and that is the requirement of proposed amendments to
identify a person within one-half mile of certain actions. He
advised that this may result in procedural errors when DNR
identifies people outside of organized boroughs or
municipalities because Alaska is not a mandatory property
recording state. Therefore, he continued, identifying owners of
property or interest in property is going to be problematic and
will have deficiencies there, so legal defects could potentially
be raised later. Mr. Goodrum related that in many of these
situations, DNR's planning process and often its decisions go
out to public notice multiple times. He said DNR also
communicates with local legislators about activities it is doing
and communicates with local governments, so that notice is
already being addressed. He further related that DNR and other
departments are concerned about being asked to make increased
notice requirements because it is inconsistent and will be
confusing to both the public and agency folks.
3:51:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER commented that regardless of location in
Alaska, it is hard to decipher who owns the land, and because of
this, as well as DNR's statement, he has a problem [with the
proposed amendment].
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS responded that the amendment's intention
is to protect homeowners who may not be checking online daily
for state land sales. He said he is willing to accept a
conceptual amendment that would replace real property with
homeowners.
3:52:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked if she is correct in understanding
that someone exercising a section line easement must notify the
property owners along that section line. She further asked how
the owners of section line easements would do that if they were
outside an organized borough. Responding to Mr. Goodrum, she
stated she is referencing an Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority property in Gustavus.
3:55:04 PM
CRIS HESS, Deputy Director, Division of Land, Mining and Water,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), answered that when a
proposed application for development of a section line easement
is received, DNR regulations require public notice as well as
personal notification of the owners of property over which the
section line easement crosses.
3:55:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked how someone exercising that section
line easement would comply with the regulations if they were not
part of an organized borough that has, say, a taxpayer database
for property owners.
MS. HESS replied that with an unorganized borough, individual
title research would be needed to find out if property along the
[proposed] section line easement has ever been in state
ownership or conveyed out of state ownership and has a section
line easement through it. If it is an organized borough taxing
authority, she continued, DNR would get the information through
the tax assessing records.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN recalled that the committee was told
regarding Amendment 6 that there isn't a comprehensive enough
database to notify property owners. However, she continued, it
is mandated that someone exercising section line easements do
the research to notify the owners of property over which the
[proposed] easement would cross. She therefore asked why it can
be done for one kind of easement, but not for other situations.
She said the question for all disposal issues becomes: "What
are the ripple effects and how do the adjoining people know?"
3:58:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS addressed Representative Hannan's point
and the notion that DNR can't comply. He stated that they are
property owners of record and DNR is going to mail a letter to
them regardless of what state they may live in.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK stated that while he appreciates the
amendment, it is another layer of delaying the process of trying
to get land in people's hands.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS clarified that Amendment 6 only proposes
[DNR] must send a letter to the landowner; it doesn't say DNR
must get acknowledgement from the landowner that the letter was
received.
3:59:24 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK said he sees value in municipality or local
government notice and understands some of the issue DNR may have
with real property ownership versus home ownership. He
requested Mr. Goodrum's comment on possibly amending language in
paragraph (1) in Amendment 6 that states "person who owns real
property" to say persons who are homeowners.
MR. GOODRUM deferred to Mr. Orman to provide an answer.
4:00:27 PM
CHRISTOPHER ORMAN, Attorney, Civil Division-Juneau, Natural
Resources Section, Department of Law (DOL), responded by first
addressing Amendment 6 itself. He said one issue with the
amendment is that it would provide notice and add notice
provisions but would do so on only certain statutes within the
[Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)]. For
example, he continued, there would be an amendment pursuant to a
bid sale under AS 38.05.055, but no amendment to other like
lease sale provisions for DNR under AS 38.05.070-085 or sales
under AS 38.05.810, which would create a hiccup. The second
hiccup, he stated, is that it is unclear with these amendments
how the interplay between these portions that would be within
the statute and then AS 38.05.945 is supposed to work. In
particular, he noted, AS 38.05.945 uses the language of
"affected parties" and requires DNR to come up with a method of
notice that will "sufficiently contact affected parties". He
said the question then about adding in these provisions is:
"Does this define what is an affected party or an affected
person at this point in 38.05.945?" In general, Mr. Orman
advised, if the goal is to add something that is consistent
across all land sale statutes and all provisions, then the
amendment would be in AS 38.05.945 and not necessarily in each
of these statutes. He said this is because the complication is
going to be with notice within each one of these statutes now,
but not all the provisions of the Act.
MR. ORMAN addressed Chair Patkotak's question about notice and
providing that type of notice to those individuals who own real
property adjacent [the state land nominated for disposal]. He
said the better approach would be in AS 38.05.945 to affected
persons or an amendment that defines some term that might add
clarity.
4:03:34 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:03 p.m. to 4:07 p.m.
4:07:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated that a question regarding Amendment
6 is whether it would be possible to clarify what is wanted for
these expedited land sales. He asked whether DNR could be
directed to notify homeowners within a half mile rather than
real property owners, given owners of vacant land may be hard to
track down.
4:08:49 PM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal
Services, Legislative Agencies and Offices, responded that a
different amendment or an amendment that would further clarify
can be drafted.
4:09:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked what the functional difference would
be in law of referencing "homeowners" versus "real property"
owners.
MR. BULLARD replied that much depends on the context. For
example, he said, this isn't something that determines who gets
to vote in a local election, this is who receives notice. He
stated he is unsure which section of the bill relating to notice
is being asked about, so he isn't sure of the particulars. All
that the courts would require, he advised, is that there is a
legitimate state purpose served in contacting only homeowners
and not the owners of real property and it doesn't relate to a
fundamental right, or that it is most likely only a legitimate
state reason for that policy choice.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN understood Mr. Bullard to have said that
unless there was some substantial reason to distinguish
homeowners versus real property [owners] the courts would think
they should be treated the same. She further understood Mr.
Bullard to have said that it would not be standard in policy to
draw that distinction unless there was an underlying policy
question or concern of how to treat people in their homes versus
ownership rights.
MR. BULLARD reiterated that he is unsure which section of the
bill is being talked about. He said it may be permissible to
distinguish homeowners from property owners; much would depend
on the facts and the context.
4:11:37 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK specified that the question relates to Amendment
6, which states: "person who owns real property that is
adjacent to or located within one-half mile of the real property
or interest in real property to be acquired or transferred". He
explained the committee is looking at the language "person who
owns real property" versus "homeowner" because perhaps it would
be a burden to reach a real property owner based on the area and
whether the owner has filed with the recording office. It is
the folks living on the property, the homeowners, adjacent to
land sales whom the committee is trying to ensure have proper
notice, he added.
MR. BULLARD answered he doesn't know whether in this case that
would be a distinction that would raise legal issues. He said
much would have to do with the nature of the real property
transfer or acquisition and whether it would be of equal value
for property owners who were not homeowners within one-half mile
of the affected area to be alerted. There might be some things,
he continued, where it would be entirely rational and
straightforward to notify only the homeowners, and there might
be other transfers of properties that would be of equal interest
to all property owners.
4:13:41 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK said he prefers to resolve this concern regarding
property owners through AS 38.05.945 by either defining affected
individuals or expanding on that definition.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated that if he owned property and was
planning on putting in apartment houses in the future, he would
still want to understand what is coming along.
4:14:48 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection to Amendment 6.
4:14:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK objected.
4:15:01 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Hopkins, Hannan,
Schrage, and Fields voted in favor of Amendment 6.
Representatives Cronk, Rauscher, Gillham, McKay, and Patkotak
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 6 failed to be adopted
by a vote of 4-5.
4:15:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to adopt Amendment 7, labeled 32-
GH1634\G.1, Bullard, 5/9/22, which read:
Page 1, line 3, following "land;":
Insert "relating to a program of state inspection
for certain meat processing facilities;"
Page 1, line 8, following "exchange;":
Insert "establishing temporary grant programs for
certain meat processing facilities and for farm
development and improvement;"
Page 3, following line 18:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 17.20.005 is amended to read:
Sec. 17.20.005. Powers and duties of
commissioner. To carry out the requirements of this
chapter, the commissioner may issue orders,
regulations, permits, quarantines, and embargoes
relating to
(1) food offered to the public or sold,
subject to AS 17.20.017, including
(A) inspection of meat, fish, poultry, and
other food products;
(B) standards of sanitation and handling
methods for all phases of slaughtering, processing,
storing, transporting, displaying, and selling;
(C) labeling; and
(D) the training, testing, and
certification requirements for individuals who handle
or prepare food, their supervisors, and their
employers to ensure their knowledge of food safety and
sanitation principles and requirements;
(2) control and eradication of pests;
(3) enforcement of hazard analysis critical
control point programs for seafood processing that are
developed in cooperation with appropriate industry
representatives or, to the extent not inconsistent
with this chapter or regulations adopted under the
authority of this chapter, that are established by
regulations of the United States Food and Drug
Administration as they may periodically be revised;
(4) labeling, subject to AS 17.20.013, and
grading of milk and milk products and standards of
sanitation for dairies offering to the public or
selling milk or milk products to at least the minimum
of current recommendations of the United States Public
Health Service pasteurized milk ordinance as it may
periodically be revised;
(5) standards and conditions for the
operation and siting of aquatic farms and related
hatcheries, including
(A) restrictions on the use of chemicals;
and
(B) requirements to protect the public from
contaminated aquatic farm products that pose a risk to
health;
(6) monitoring aquatic farms and aquatic
farm products to ensure compliance with this chapter
and, to the extent not inconsistent with this chapter
or regulations adopted under the authority of this
chapter, with the requirements of the national
shellfish sanitation program manual of operations
published by the United States Food and Drug
Administration as it may periodically be revised;
(7) tests and analyses that may be made and
hearings that may be held to determine whether the
commissioner will issue a stop order or quarantine;
(8) transportation of, use of, disposal of,
recalls of, or warnings concerning quarantined or
embargoed items;
(9) cooperation with federal and other
state agencies.
* Sec. 3. AS 17.20 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 17.20.017. Inspection of processed meat
products. (a) The department may adopt regulations to
establish a program of state inspection for the
processing and sale of meat products, including meat
products from amenable species.
(b) The department may administer and enforce
regulations adopted under (a) of this section for a
program of state inspection for the processing and
sale of meat products from amenable species only if
the program is approved by the federal government.
(c) Regulations adopted by the department under
this section must impose requirements that are not
less stringent than the requirements imposed under 21
U.S.C. 601 - 695 (Federal Meat Inspection Act) and 7
U.S.C. 1901 - 1907 (Humane Methods of Slaughter Act).
(d) Subject to (b) of this section, and except
as provided in (e) of this section, if the department
adopts regulations to establish a program of state
inspection for the processing and sale of meat
products, the department shall
(1) license facilities that process meat
products for sale to the public;
(2) adopt license requirements and fees for
facilities that process meat products for sale to the
public; and
(3) use officers and employees of the
department to inspect facilities that are licensed
under this subsection.
(e) The department may not establish,
administer, or enforce a program of inspection under
this section for facilities that process meat products
from equines.
(f) In this section,
(1) "amenable species" has the meaning
given in 21 U.S.C. 601(w);
(2) "equine" means a member of the family
Equidae."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 15, following line 15:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 21. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
TEMPORARY GRANT PROGRAM FOR MEAT PROCESSING
FACILITIES. (a) The Department of Environmental
Conservation shall establish a grant program by
regulation for the purpose of funding
(1) upgrades to a facility that is expected
to operate under a program of state inspection
authorized under AS 17.20.017, added by sec. 3 of this
Act;
(2) construction of a new facility that is
expected to operate under a program of state
inspection authorized under AS 17.20.017, added by
sec. 3 of this Act; and
(3) expansion of a facility that operates
under a program of federal inspection that plans to
increase processing of meat from animals raised in the
state.
(b) In administering the grant program
established under (a) of this section, the Department
of Environmental Conservation
(1) shall develop criteria for awarding a
grant and a process for applying for a grant that
includes requiring
(A) a grant applicant to submit a business
plan that provides
(i) how the applicant will meet the
criteria required by the department to approve a grant
under this section;
(ii) a timeline for the applicant to meet
the upgrades, construction, or expansion funded by the
grant; and
(B) the department to
(i) approve an applicant's business plan
before awarding a grant;
(ii) visit an applicant's facility or the
site of a facility proposed by an applicant to be
upgraded, constructed, or expanded with grant funds;
(2) shall
(A) award grants preferentially to support
facilities that prioritize seasonally feasible
processing of meat from animals raised in the state;
and
(B) require a recipient of a grant to
report to the department on the use of grant funds;
(3) may make grants of up to $150,000 to an
applicant whose business plan is approved under this
subsection for eligible expenses approved by the
department;
(4) may make grants under this section
until July 1, 2023.
(c) A recipient of a grant made under this
section may use grant funds for costs related to
activities described in (a) of this section that are
approved by the department, including costs of
technical assistance and the purchase of equipment.
(d) The department may charge an administrative
fee to the recipient of a grant made under this
section to cover the department's costs of
administering the temporary grant program. The
department
(1) shall deduct the fee from the grant
funds provided to the recipient; and
(2) may not charge a recipient more than
three percent of the amount of a grant made to the
recipient applicant under this section.
(e) The temporary meat processing facilities
grant fund is established in the department and
consists of appropriations to the fund. Appropriations
to the fund do not lapse.
(f) Except as otherwise provided by this
section, if work on a project under (a) of this
section is not concluded by June 30, 2028, the grant
recipient shall repay to the fund any money not spent
from the grant. Grant funds used for expenses that are
not eligible under (c) of this section or that are not
accounted for in the recipient's business plan
approved by the department under (b) of this section
must also be repaid to the fund. On and after July 1,
2023, any money repaid by a grant recipient shall be
deposited into the general fund.
* Sec. 22. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
TEMPORARY GRANT PROGRAM FOR FARM DEVELOPMENT AND
IMPROVEMENT. (a) The division of the Department of
Natural Resources with responsibility for agriculture
shall establish a grant program by regulation for the
purpose of funding investments in agriculture to build
resiliency in the state's food supply.
(b) In administering the grant program
established under (a) of this section, the Department
of Natural Resources
(1) shall develop criteria for awarding a
grant and a process for applying for a grant that
includes requiring
(A) a grant applicant to submit a business
plan that provides
(i) how the applicant will meet the
criteria required by the department to approve a grant
under this section;
(ii) a timeline for the applicant to meet
the upgrades, construction, or expansion funded by the
grant; and
(B) the department to
(i) approve an applicant's business plan
before awarding a grant;
(ii) visit an applicant's farm, facility,
or other site that would receive funding under a grant
made under this section;
(2) shall require a recipient of a grant to
report to the department on the use of grant funds;
(3) may make grants of up to $150,000 to an
applicant for eligible farm development and
improvement expenses approved by the department;
(4) may make grants under this section
until July 1, 2023.
(c) Eligible expenses under (b)(3) of this
section include expenses relating to
(1) clearing of land for agricultural
purposes; and
(2) the purchase, building, installation,
maintenance, or improvement of
(A) irrigation, drainage, and other water
management systems;
(B) fencing, trellising, barns,
greenhouses, or other farm buildings or structures;
(C) agricultural processing and farm
equipment, including milking and pasteurization
equipment;
(D) livestock, feed, seeds, fertilizer, and
seasonal extension equipment; and
(E) bees and beekeeping equipment.
(d) The department may charge an administrative
fee to the recipient of a grant made under this
section to cover the department's costs of
administering the temporary grant program. The
administrative fee
(1) shall be deducted from the grant funds
provided to the recipient; and
(2) may not exceed three percent of the
amount of a grant made under this section.
(e) The temporary farm development and
improvement grant fund is established in the
department and consists of appropriations to the fund.
Appropriations to the fund do not lapse.
(f) Except as otherwise provided by this
section, if work on a project under (a) of this
section is not concluded by June 30, 2028, the grant
recipient must repay to the fund any money not spent
from a grant received under this section. Grant funds
used for expenses that are not eligible under (c) of
this section or that are not accounted for in a
recipient's business plan approved by the department
under (b) of this section must also be repaid to the
fund. On and after July 1, 2023, any money repaid by a
grant recipient shall be deposited into the general
fund.
* Sec. 23. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
TRANSITION: REGULATIONS. The Department of
Environmental Conservation and the Department of
Natural Resources shall adopt regulations necessary to
implement secs. 2, 3, 21, and 22 of this Act. The
regulations take effect under AS 44.62 (Administrative
Procedure Act), but not before the effective date of
the law implemented by the regulation."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 15, following line 16:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 25. Sections 21 and 22 of this Act are
repealed January 1, 2029.
* Sec. 26. Sections 21 and 22 of this Act take
effect January 1, 2023."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 15, line 17:
Delete "This"
Insert "Except as provided by sec. 26 of this Act,
this"
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:16:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER deferred to Mr. Brouwer, staff to
Representative Tarr, to explain Amendment 7.
THATCHER BROUWER, Staff, Representative Geran Tarr, presented
Amendment 7 on behalf of Representative Rauscher. He explained
that the amendment is something Representative Tarr has been
working on with the Food and Farm Caucus. Amendment 7 would
allow the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to
establish a meat inspection program so DEC could allow for the
sale of meat products. Further, it would allow for a temporary
grant program housed in DEC for meat processing facilities, but
there have been discussions that it might be more appropriately
housed in the [Division of Agriculture] within the Department of
Natural Resources.
4:17:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, echoed that
she has been working on this issue with the Food and Farm
Caucus. She related that dollars have been in the budget for
food security and the caucus is trying to more effectively
define how those dollars might be used. The [COVID-19] pandemic
showed the need for more in-state meat processing facilities,
which is reflected in one section of Amendment 7. Another
section, she said, is the temporary grant program for farm
development and improvement. She noted that while funds have
been proposed in the capital budget for the Nenana-Totchaket
area, farmers in other areas of Alaska are asking that they not
be forgotten in the distribution of funds. This program, she
continued, is therefore intended to capture all the bases of
agricultural work, whether it is folks in the infancy of their
farm development project or folks who are well established,
thereby increasing production for Alaskans and the overall goal
of improving food security for the state.
4:19:35 PM
MR. GOODRUM provided DNR's response to Amendment 7. He said he
and DNR Commissioner Feige recently met with the Food and Farm
Caucus. He related that the department is in favor of the
conversation and aligned with what he believes Amendment 7 is
proposing to do. He said he understands a few tweaks to some of
the language may be needed going forward. Conceptually, he
added, DNR and the administration are supportive of increasing
Alaska's food security and efforts to do that.
4:20:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether there was another bill that
would have done this.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER replied that to his knowledge no bill
was run this year, there was consideration of whether to do so
or to run an amendment. He said an amendment would be better to
do in a bill that was going to move across the line this year
rather than to start over from scratch.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR confirmed the aforementioned. She related
that language was drafted early in the session by the caucus to
get the process going. But, she continued, the caucus quickly
decided that it wanted to prioritize its focus on this lands
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether there is a fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that $3 million is currently in the
capital budget for this program and under consideration in the
other body, so new dollars are not being sought. She said a $7
million appropriation was originally proposed by the governor.
She recounted that last year some dollars for food security were
put into the budget to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G), which were spent differently from how [the caucus
envisioned]. [The caucus], she continued, therefore decided to
put some effort into developing how it would like to see dollars
spent.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN expressed her concern with Amendment 7
being added to a bill about land and land disposal with one week
remaining in session and in only one committee meeting. She
noted that HB 120 is complex and has been worked on for two
sessions and argued that Amendment 7 would add a program that
doesn't relate to the bill. She said Amendment 7 would stand up
a new policy, and due diligence by the committee will not have
been done to ensure the project helps the people it is intended
to help. She agreed that meat processing is an area that needs
to be supported and expanded but maintained that HB 120 is the
wrong vehicle to do it.
4:24:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY stated he loves the intent of Amendment 7
but agrees with Representative Hannan that this would be far
afield from the intent of HB 120. He expressed his concern that
Amendment 7 would hinder the bill from passing this session.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that she has confidence in the
amendment because dozens of people have worked on it throughout
the session and because agriculture provisions are in the lands
bill in the other body, which is the reason for attaching this
to HB 120. Regarding what the appropriate vehicle is, she said
it has been a Food and Farm Caucus priority with the involvement
of 8-10 senators who are interested in getting this shared
priority across the finish line.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER added that there have been talks about
the amendment with the administration and DNR. He said the
timing is such because the amendment is written now, and HB 120
is being heard.
4:27:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK remarked that great ideas come up and get a
little funding, but never enough funding to get food security on
the ground. He said this is a good start to educating people
about having their own food security and to extending power to
places. Once that happens, he continued, waiting for Nenana-
Totchaket isn't necessary because [other] places are ready to
go. He said he supports Amendment 7 because continuing to wait
is hampering Alaska's food security.
4:28:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS observed that Amendment 7, page 4, lines
26-27, [as numbered on the amendment] state that the department
"may make grants of up to $150,000 to an applicant whose
business plan is approved". He asked whether this is new
language.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that it has always been included as
an element to ensure the dollars go to projects that have been
reviewed and have a strong business plan.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether a new grant is being
created by Amendment 7.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied yes, it is a temporary program, and
the repeal dates are at the end of the amendment.
4:29:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether there is a cap [on the
number of grants].
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded it will be distributed based on
the dollars available through the budget process. She
reiterated that $3 million is currently in the budget for this
specific program.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS calculated that to be 20 grants. He
remarked that Amendment 7 is a big amendment, and because he
only received it today he doesn't have a grasp on what all the
amendment does. He observed that the amendment includes food
handling, standards to be created by DEC that are at least a
minimum of the federal Meat Inspection Act and Humane Methods of
Slaughter Act, and creation of the grant program for $3 million
this year. He surmised that if the $3 million doesn't make it
through the conference committee on HB 120, the grant program
would not be available this coming year. He asked whether there
are other provisions in the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that the first part uses the
language "may" rather than "shall" to give DEC the ability to
consider an in-state meat processing program given the
challenges with the USDA facility. She noted that a prior
program was cut in 1999 due to budget cuts. She said the
amendment includes the two temporary grant programs with repeal
dates, and the same language is used for both programs to
require a business plan, timeline, and site visit. The two
programs differ in the items that qualify, she added, because
one is more related to food/farm agricultural products and the
other is related to the meat processing.
4:32:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether Mr. Goodrum sees any issues
related to Representative McKay's concerns about hindering the
bill's movement since Amendment 7 deals with meat processing
facilities, not lands. He further asked where the nexus is for
the title of the legislation change.
MR. GOODRUM qualified he is not a legal expert as far as
compatibility with the other land aspects but that there are
other provisions in the bill which deal with food security. He
advised that DNR desires to make more agricultural land
available and more flexible in uses so that it's a profitable
and marketable endeavor for Alaskans. He said the Division of
Agriculture works closely with the Food and Farm Caucus, a food
task force, and other groups that are all trying to move in the
same direction [regarding food security]. During a recent
meeting, he continued, DNR heard the concepts that were being
discussed and they generally aligned with where the department
felt it needed to go. So, he stated, it could be a good thing
if Amendment 7 is attached to HB 120, and it is up to this
committee to make that decision.
4:34:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said he trusts that Amendment 7 is being
presented accurately and thinks he supports what the amendment
does, but today is the first time he has seen the amendment. He
said he cannot support Amendment 7 today, having been given too
short a notice, but maybe [he could support] the amendment on
the House floor.
4:35:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether everything in Section 2 of
Amendment 7 is about existing inspections staying the same,
except for the addition of AS 17.20.017 on page 1, line 15.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR confirmed AS 17.20.017 is the only addition.
She drew attention to page 2, Section 3, Sec. 17.20.017, which
adds inspection of processed meat products if the state were to
choose to do an in-state inspection program.
4:36:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS agreed Amendment 7 is long, but said he is
comfortable deferring to the homework done by Representative
Tarr and other colleagues in the caucus with this expertise.
4:37:09 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection to Amendment 7.
4:37:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE objected to Amendment 7.
4:37:23 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Rauscher, Gillham,
McKay, Fields, Cronk, Hopkins, and Patkotak voted in favor of
Amendment 7. Representatives Schrage and Hannan voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 7 was adopted by a vote of 7-2.
CHAIR PATKOTAK invited further discussion on HB 120, as amended.
4:38:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated he has strong objections to HB 120,
as amended. He said it's sad that DNR didn't want to support
amendments protecting public access where there is an
opportunity to do development and access. If this bill becomes
law, he opined, special interests will be scouring DNR's
properties trying to sole source purchase properties for below
market value, and adjacent landowners and local governments will
not be aware of it. This is inconsistent with the
constitutional language for the maximum benefit, he argued. He
maintained that HB 120, as amended, is a political vehicle so
the governor can say he is developing lands. The bill, he
continued, is further politicized with the addition of the
Alaska Native Vietnam veteran land exchange, which has nothing
to do with the underlying bill and should have been a separate
vehicle. He charged that legislators are being railroaded that
if they don't support this bill they don't support Alaska Native
veterans. He opined that HB 120, as amended, is offensive and
terrible legislation, and he stated he would fight to defeat it.
4:40:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked Representative Fields whether [his
opinion] relates to specific amendments or the bill as a unit.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS replied that his primary concerns are lack
of public notice and review by the public and lack of public
access should properties be developed. He stated that had the
notice and public access amendments been adopted, or had Section
13 been eliminated, then 95 percent of his concerns would have
been eliminated.
4:40:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK said the state has been fighting for public
access and he doesn't see HB 120, as amended, as lessening that.
The state is going to continue to protect public access, he
added.
4:41:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER suggested that there might be a few
small items that need tightening up on the floor.
4:41:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated that she has expressed her concerns
and wishes that the focus of HB 120, as amended, had been
narrowed to an agricultural bill and developing a specific
viable industry versus making it all things to everyone where
there isn't an understanding of their intersects. The bill as
it now stands, she argued, would allow someone to individually
nominate land to develop a commercial interest and then claim
standing to oppose other kinds of development in the future.
That is why, she continued, it is essential to have area
management plans and not do it piecemeal. She maintained that
HB 120, as amended, tries to do too many things that have
different goals. She said she could stand behind the bill if
Section 13 wasn't there because it would create headaches and
need to be revisited.
4:44:01 PM
MR. GOODRUM stated that over the past couple years this bill has
been before the committee in various forms and discussed. He
said DNR is a big department with broad responsibilities and its
mandate is to manage Alaska's lands and to make them available
for use. The bill's goal, he specified, has always been to help
facilitate economic growth in the state and to see fuller
utilization of Alaska's lands. Further, he noted, DNR is
working to improve the state's food security. Last, he said, it
must be ensured that Alaska Native Vietnam veterans are made
whole by promises made to them by the federal government [being
upheld]. Many of those promises have not been fulfilled, Mr.
Goodrum continued, and many of the lands that have been made
available to them by the federal government are in areas that
are of little interest to them because they have no tie to the
land. This provision in HB 120, as amended, he added, could
possibly be a better solution to them, their families, and their
heirs.
4:46:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to report HB 120, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
4:46:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS objected.
4:46:37 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Schrage, McKay,
Cronk, Rauscher, Gillham, and Patkotak voted in favor of HB 120,
as amended. Representatives Fields, Hopkins, and Hannan voted
against it. Therefore, CSHB 120(RES) was reported out of the
House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 6-3.
CHAIR PATKOTAK noted that Legislative Legal Services can make
technical changes to the bill.
4:47:37 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:47 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 120 Amendment Fields G.4 5.10.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 Amendment Fields G.6 5.10.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 Amendment Fields G.5 5.10.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| SB 177 DEC Responses to Committee Questions 5.10.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 177 |
| HB 120 Amendment Rauscher G.1 5.10.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| SB 177 Testimony Packet 5.10.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Fields Conceptual Amendment 5.10.22.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 177 |
| HB 120 Amendment Packet with Committee Actions 5.10.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 Testimony Packet Four 5.10.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |