Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/04/1999 05:00 PM House WTR
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WORLD TRADE
AND STATE/FEDERAL RELATIONS
March 4, 1999
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ramona Barnes, Chair
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 4
"An Act rejecting the use of daylight saving time."
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 109
"An Act relating to management of fish and game in Glacier Bay
National Park and Preserve and navigable waters."
- FAILED TO MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15
Relating to support for an "American Land Sovereignty Protection
Act" in the United States Congress.
- MOVED CSHJR 15(WTR) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 4
SHORT TITLE: ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOHRING, Davis
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 18 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99
1/19/99 18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 19 (H) WTR, LABOR & COMMERCE
2/24/99 307 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DAVIS
BILL: HB 109
SHORT TITLE: GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) OGAN, Dyson, Green, Kohring,
Cowdery, Austerman, Harris, Grussendorf, James, Porter, Coghill,
Whitaker, Mulder, Williams, Phillips, Sanders
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/22/99 278 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/22/99 278 (H) WTR, RESOURCES
2/24/99 309 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WILLIAMS, PHILLIPS,
2/24/99 309 (H) SANDERS
BILL: HJR 15
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORT AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY ACT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) JAMES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/17/99 236 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/17/99 236 (H) WTR, RESOURCES
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2186
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 4.
RANDY LORENZ, Researcher
for Representative Vic Kohring
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6597
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and provided information
on HB 4.
JOEL CURTIS
317 East Harvard Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 227-1823
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 4.
DENNY WEATHERS
P.O. Box 1791
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-3745
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 4.
ERIK WEATHERS
P.O. Box 1791
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-3745
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 4.
ROBERT ROGERS
P.O. Box 893
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-3287
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 4.
PAULA RAK
P.O. Box 1852
Wrangell, Alaska 99929
Telephone: (907) 874-3824
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 4.
GINNY FAY, Legislative Liaison
Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED)
P.O. Box 110800
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0800
Telephone: (907) 465-2503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of DCED and voiced
concerns with HB 4.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 128
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3878
POSITION STATEMENT: As the sponsor, he introduced HB 109.
WARREN OLSEN
5961 Orth Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 346-4440
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 109, expressed some
reservations with the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
ROD ARNO, President
Alaska Outdoor Council
P.O. Box 2790
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 376-2913
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the Alaska Outdoor
Council in support of HB 109.
ED DUNCAN
P.O. Box 2
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-3287
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 109.
KAY ANDREW
P.O. Box 7211
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-2463
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 109.
HOWARD STARBARD, Lieutenant
Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection
Department of Public Safety
451 South Valley Way
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 746-9107
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the Department of
Public Safety with opposition to part of
Section 2 of HB 109.
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Mayor
City of Pelican
P.O. Box 66
Pelican, Alaska 99832
Telephone: (907) 735-2215
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 109.
KEN EICHNER
5166 Shoreline Drive
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-4517
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 109 and discussed
problems encountered with the park service
in Glacier Bay National Park.
DOUG OGILVY
[address not found]
Gustavus, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 697-2409
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 109.
KENNETH GRANT, President
Hoonah Indian Association (HIA)
317 Garteeni Highway
Hoonah, Alaska 99829
Telephone: (907) 945-3545
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the HIA, in support
of HB 109.
JOHN OBRIEN, SR.
9450 Herbert Place
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-7516
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 109.
PATRICK WRIGHT, President
Scientific Management of Alaska's Resource Treasures (SMART)
P.O. Box 90386
Anchorage, Alaska 99509
Telephone: (907) 279-1340
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of SMART.
PAUL ANDERSON, City Council member
City of Petersburg
P.O. Box 1454
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-3060
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Petersburg in support
of HB 109 and keeping Glacier Bay open to
fishing.
DICK COOSE, Executive Director
Concerned Alaskans for Resource and Environment (CARE)
P.O. Box 9266
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 247-9266
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of CARE in support of HB
109.
DICK HOFMANN, President
Alaska Trollers Association
5025 Thane Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3451
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the Alaska Trollers
Association in support of HB 109.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of ADF&G in support of
maintaining Alaska's right to manage fish
and wildlife.
MYRNA MCGHIE, Legislative Administrative Assistant
for Representative Jeannette James
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-465-5038
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HJR 15 and offered an amendment
to the bill.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-04, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR RAMONA BARNES called the House Special Committee on World
Trade and State/Federal Relations meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Members present at the call to order were Representatives Barnes,
Cowdery, Masek, Phillips, Green and Joule. Representative
Berkowitz arrived at 5:10 p.m.
HB 4 - ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME
CHAIR BARNES announced the first order of business was House Bill
No. 4, "An Act rejecting the use of daylight saving time." She
called on Representative Kohring to come forward and introduce the
bill.
Number 0116
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING stated, "We are all familiar with the
concept of springing forward in the spring and falling back in the
fall, and we're trying to stop that practice for a variety of
reasons here, and we'll get to those momentarily." He said that
Daylight Savings Time first originated in 1917 in Germany in order
to save energy during the war. Since that time, the United States
adopted Daylight Savings Time, including Alaska, in 1967. He
believes that the 32-year experiment is a failure. There are other
states that have taken Daylight Savings Time off their books, they
include, Arizona, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and part of Indiana.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING further stated that there would also be
economic, as well as, other benefits from taking Daylight Savings
Time off the books. First, the inconvenience of making adjustments
to clocks in VCRs, computers, cash registers, fax machines and
other electronic equipment.
Number 0362
CHAIR BARNES clarified for the committee that if there was more
than one time zone in Alaska, presently, taking Daylight Savings
Time off the books would have to be done through the United States
Department of Transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the ramifications of trade with other
states was going to be discussed.
RANDY LORENZ, Researcher for Representative Vic Kohring, Alaska
State Legislature, stated that there should be minimal impact with
the trade with other states. Most of the members of the business
community are doing their work through computers, so the need for
ordering over the phone is less important then it would have been
20 years ago.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that when he first moved to Alaska over
20 years ago there were multiple time zones, and one of the main
concerns for Anchorage and Juneau residents was the one hour time
difference. Juneau wanted their time zone to be the same as
Seattle, because so much of their correspondence and trade was with
Seattle, but that would have meant a two-hour time difference
between Anchorage and Juneau. Ultimately, there ended up being one
time zone for the entire state. His concern is, if Alaska drops
the Daylight Savings Time and Seattle goes on Daylight Savings
Time, then in the summer there will be a two-hour difference
instead of a one-hour difference. He asked if it would be better
if Alaska goes on Daylight Savings Time and stays on Daylight
Savings Time, so that way Alaska would be on the same time zone as
Seattle for six months and the other six months of the year there
would be a one hour difference.
Number 0626
MR. LORENZ explained that Daylight Savings Time cannot be taken as
Standard Time unless a resolution is passed, sent to Washington,
and the federal government makes that change. Another reason is
something called chronobiology, which is looking at the
implications of changing the solar clock farther from the internal
clock. Mr. Lorenz mentioned that some people say that forms of
mental illness are caused or exacerbated by the change from the
natural noon that occurs in an area. The majority of the people in
Alaska, close to 75 percent, live at 150 degrees west longitude,
Anchorage, which means Alaska is already an hour off. The shifting
of time twice a year could cause more of a problem for people who
suffer from seasonal defective disorder (SAD) or other mental
illness.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated that he supports HB 4.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked why people in different parts of the
state can't start their day at a different time. He wondered if
there was anything in statute.
Number 0833
MR. LORENZ said, no, there is nothing in statute that requires the
day to start at a certain time, but Daylight Savings Time is a
choice also, and Alaskans have gone blindly along even though
Daylight Savings Time provides Alaskans with no benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if Mr. Lorenz had talked to people
in the business community about protecting or eliminating Daylight
Savings Time, and what affects it might have on Federal Express
mail and airports.
MR. LORENZ informed the committee that he has talked to people in
the business community. Most of the business community are doing
ordering and banking through computers, so the need to talk to
another individual is not as important. As for transportation
there is a cost saving, because they run on Greenwich Mean Time.
Number 1011
MR. LORENZ explained that Nazi Germany used Daylight Savings Time
in World War II in order to get more work out of there prisoners,
because of the extra hour of daylight in the evenings. He said
that he cannot find any reason why the United States chose to
implement Daylight Savings Time, other than, in the lower latitudes
there would be an extra hour of daylight after work, so people
could work outside. In Alaska there is plenty of daylight, and for
what it costs to make the change every year, there doesn't seem to
be a benefit.
JOEL CURTIS, 9-year Alaska resident, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage. He informed the committee that he is currently
working as a lead forecaster for the National Weather Service.
There are many advantages for staying on standard time. He said
that in his own life he does rotating shift work as a lead
forecaster for the National Weather Service, and is aware of the
natural circadian rhythms that people have and their health. A
central time meridian of 150 degrees west for all of Alaska would
be going closer to people's natural time. He strongly agrees with
Randy Lorenz about computers so readily being used now that there
is no need for the West coast and the East coast to be in tune.
There is a strong benefit for Alaskans to be closer to their
natural time. He informed the committee that he quickly did an
informal poll of the people in the room in Anchorage, and none of
them wanted to go on Daylight Savings Time in the summer. He
thanked Representative Kohring and Randy Lorenz for working on HB
4.
DENNY WEATHERS testified via teleconference from Cordova, reading:
Alaskans receive no benefits from Daylight Savings Time, it
only serves as a nuisance. Friends in both Hawaii and Arizona
which are on Standard Time year round say they love it. It
would mean no more pulling clocks off the wall twice a year,
no more missing appointments, being late to work or school,
because either you or someone else missed a clock. We are
supposed to be an independent sovereign state, so lets break
away from the congress's mandated [mandate of] 1967 and switch
back to Standard Time.
She thanked the committee for the opportunity to testify.
Number 1390
ERIK WEATHERS testifying via teleconference from Cordova, said that
he doesn't like Daylight Savings Time and being a commercial
fisherman it is difficult in dealing with the tides, so he just
doesn't change his clock.
ROBERT ROGERS testified via teleconference from Petersburg, saying
that for Southeast Alaska eliminating Daylight Savings Time will
not be very popular and not a good idea, because light is already
limited in the evenings. [lost part of the testimony due to sound
problems]
Number 1549
PAULA RAK testified via teleconference from Wrangell, she stated:
I would like to express my opposition to HB 4, which requests
an elimination of Daylight Savings Time. Although the
proposed change would make it slightly more convenient in that
we would not have to adjust to an hour's change twice a year,
the inconvenience it would cause would not be worth the
benefit. Quoting 15 U.S.C. 260-64, time zones were
established in the United States with 'regard for the
convenience of commerce and the existing junction points and
division points of common carriers engaged in interstate
commerce'. The convenience of commerce has been defined to
include consideration of all the impacts upon a community,
which include impacts on individuals, families, businesses and
other organizations. Because of our location in the Pacific
Northwest, our commerce has historically been tied to the
Seattle area, which observes Pacific Standard and Daylight
Savings Time [PST/PDT] Zone. The proposed change would mean
that we would be one hour different from the Pacific Northwest
in the winter and two hours different in the summer. When our
state government proposed that most of Alaska change to Alaska
Standard Time, there was a loud outcry from Southeast Alaska.
We were on Pacific Standard Time, the same as Seattle, and
most residents did not want to change. Votes were held in
many communities in Southern Southeast and it was
overwhelmingly shown that we wanted to stay on Pacific
Standard Time. Now we are being asked to swallow being
another hour away from the favored time zone for part of the
year. If it is so inconvenient to change from Standard time
to Daylight Savings time, I would suggest that we stay on
Daylight Savings Time year round instead of staying on
Standard Time year round.
As a business owner, I find it extremely inconvenient to be 4
hours different from the East Coast. This change would mean
that we would be 5 hours different for part of the year and
that we would have to try to remember when the rest of the
country changes. Most people can't remember now without
reminders, let alone try to remember when we are no longer
switching ourselves [so there would be no reminders].
As an individual, I would sorely miss that lost hour of
evening daylight. It would be greatly missed in the spring
and summer when the days are shorter. As a parent, the
children would miss that hour of playtime after school. I
realize that it would not make as much difference in areas
outside of Southeast Alaska, but the difference would be
significant here. One must remember that we should actually
be on Pacific Standard Time if one were to look at a map.
She emphasized that Juneau is a lot farther south and farther east
than Anchorage, therefore, Anchorage gets more light in the
evenings and would not be as affected by this change. As far as
the idea of natural time, Juneau should be on Pacific Standard
Time.
Number 1758
GINNY FAY, Legislative Liaison, Department of Commerce and Economic
Development (DCED), stated that she is speaking on behalf of the
DCED and they have concerns with HB 4. At this time Alaska is
four-hours different from the East coast and two hours different
from the West coast all year. A number of the permanent fund
investment trackers have to come into work before 4:00 a.m. so they
can be on their computers when the stock market opens. If Daylight
Savings Time was eliminated, there would be people following
stocks, not only at the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, but also
in the Department of Revenue, Treasury Division, coming into work
before 3:00 a.m. In addition, the DCED is interested in Alaska
having a more diverse economy. Alaska is four-hours different from
the East coast, but the advantage is that Alaska can also tap into
the Asian market by being somewhat in between. There are
approximately 51 firms in Alaska, 103 branches, with a number of
brokers in each firm. To be five hours off of Wall Street might
have somewhat of a chilling affect on growing that financial
sector. Even though a lot is done by computer, a lot is still done
by phone. The timeliness of information available on computers is
still dependent on a person being present to enter the information.
Number 1915
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Fay if she had talked to anyone
in the business community.
MS. FAY replied, that has not happened yet. Mostly she has spoken
with members of the permanent fund and the DCED, Division of
Banking, Securities and Corporations, and their perception is that
it would be a problem for businesses, because large insurance
companies are located on the East coast, as well as, a lot of large
brokerages.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ voiced concern about three different areas
that would be affected by HB 4; investment managers, air traffic
and logistic operations and the disported impact on different parts
of the state.
Number 2010
CHAIR BARNES stated that it would be her intention to pass HB 4 out
of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HB 4 out of committee
with individual recommendation and the attached zero fiscal note
and asked unanimous consent.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if there is an effective date.
CHAIR BARNES explained that HB 4 did not have an effective date and
would therefore go into effect 90 days after the passage.
CHAIR BARNES asked unanimous consent. There being no objections,
HB 4 was moved out of committee.
HB 109 - GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK
Number 2092
CHAIR BARNES announced the next order of business was House Bill
No. 109, "An Act relating to management of fish and game in Glacier
Bay National Park and Preserve and navigable waters." She called
on Representative Ogan to introduce the bill.
Number 2111
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked for an at-ease.
CHAIR BARNES called an at-ease at 5:35 p.m. and called the meeting
back to order at 5:36 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to Section 1, AS 16.20.010, of HB 109,
which reads (new text underlined):
The legislature recognizes that
(1) the state has jurisdiction over all fish and game in the
state except in those areas where it has assented to federal
control;
(2) the state has not assented to federal control of fish and
game in
(A) those areas that [WHICH] were set apart as National
Bird and Wildlife Refuges while the state was a United
States territory; and
(B) Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve or the
navigable waters within or adjoining the park and
preserve.
He said, it seemed an appropriate place to state in statute that
the state has not assented control in Glacier Bay National Park.
Also added in Section 2, "the state may not expend funds to adopt,
enforce, or otherwise assist in the implementation of the federal
regulatory program." Language was also included from the court
case New York v. United States, which reads, "the federal
government cannot commandeer the lawmaking processes of a state to
compel it to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program."
Number 2233
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed concern about the New York v.
United States court case and the supremacy clause in the United
States Constitution. He asked Representative Ogan to explain,
"What sort of force this would have if it came into a federal law
that disagreed with our intention here?"
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied that it is probably not going to make
much difference to the National Park Service (NPS) and the federal
law, however it could help in a court case, which the Governor has
seen the wisdom in defending our sovereign rights and state in
statute that the state has not assented to federal control.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ requested clarification, he asked
Representative Ogan, "You're objecting to federal control over our
management of Glacier Bay?"
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded that he is objecting not to federal
control of the state's management, but the loss of the state's
management to the federal government in Glacier Bay National Park.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ wondered, "Why Glacier Bay is different
from loss of state management over the entire state resources?"
Number 2330
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated, "The Attorney General and the Governor
made my case today in their press conference, and they talked about
1953 Submerged Land Act and how it deeded to the states these
simple titles to submerged lands and with it the right to control
fishing. [They] talked about police powers, navigable waters,
states rights, sovereign rights and I think because we have, I
believe, a consensus in this state that it's a bad thing in Glacier
Bay, I think it's an appropriate venue to leave it there."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he agrees with Representative
Ogan. He voiced concern, "Title 8 and the Katie John case,
somehow, render mute all our protestation until we do something
about it."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated, "I don't think we should ever give up
the battle without a fight."
Number 2414
WARREN OLSEN testified via teleconference from Anchorage, saying
that he has some reservations about the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and it's ramifications on federal
lands with regards to use and users. He said that he thinks there
are some problems. One being a state law that is on the books
right now on subsistence, passed in 1992, that is creating
preference among users. The case is weakened when the state steps
up to bat and tells the federal government that they're going to
manage these users. The other problem is with ANILCA, in removing
sovereignty from the state of Alaska.
Number 2518
ROD ARNO, President, Alaska Outdoor Council, testified via
teleconference from Palmer, saying that he was representing the
Alaska Outdoor Council and was in support of HB 109. He stated,
"The fact that we have to be here and continue to reiterate our
sovereignty is getting old, but we stay at it." In the Totemoff
case the Alaska Supreme Court said, "Under ANILCA the definition of
public lands in ANILCA excludes navigable waters." Also in the
Totemoff case it states, "Nothing in Title 8 of ANILCA discloses a
clear and manifest service to prohibit all state regulations.
Nothing in this Act is intended to enlarge or diminish the
responsibility and authority of the state for management of fish
and game on public lands."
ED DUNCAN, over 30-year commercial fisherman, testified via
teleconference from Petersburg. He said that he has been fishing
in Glacier Bay National Park for over 20 years and that he supports
HB 109. He expressed his appreciation towards the Governor's
lawsuit decision, which gives more support.
Number 2654
KAY ANDREW testified via teleconference from Ketchikan, saying that
she supports HB 109. She stated, "I would hope that the full House
and senate would support this bill. It's a matter of sovereign
rights and state rights. The federal government is trying to take
away something they have no right to take away. Congratulations to
those representatives who will protect all Alaskan's rights and the
Governor for finally standing up for Alaskans."
HOWARD STARBARD, Lieutenant, Division of Fish and Wildlife
Protection, Department of Public Safety, testified via
teleconference from Palmer, stated that he has worked for 16 years
with the fish and wildlife troopers and has spent 11 of the 16
years patrolling resource enforcement in and around Glacier Bay
National Park. Speaking on behalf of the Department of Public
Safety, he said that HB 109 is designed to put the federal
government on notice that the state has not assented to federal
control of resource management within Glacier Bay National Park.
The problem the Department of Public Safety has is with Section 2
of HB 109, which would significantly impact how the Division of
Fish and Wildlife Protection operates it's program objectives,
specifically with the prohibitation of state agencies from
assisting with the implementation of a federal resource program in
Glacier Bay National Park and adjoining navigable waters. The
definition of "assist" could be interpreted to include all federal
law, including the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Endangered
Species Act and various other Acts. "Navigable waters" could
include Cross Sound, Icy Strait, the Gulf of Alaska from Cape
Spencer to Dry Bay, because there is not a clear definition of what
that includes. Therefore, it is unclear, in terms of location,
where taking action would be in violation of this law and also
would the state be prohibited from sending in enforcement if
someone was trespassing.
Number 2808
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there was a problem with federal
funding or assistance in other areas of the state if the provisions
of Section 2 of HB 109 were enacted.
MR. STARBARD replied that the Department of Public Safety receives
some funding from the federal government, U.S. Forest Service, for
patrolling within their area and the department is reimbursed. In
addition, the federal enforcement agencies, National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the U.S. Coast Guard, provide a valuable
service to the state by their assistance in enforcing state
regulations. He stated, "If they were to curtail their enforcement
efforts, the Department of Public Safety would be unable to
adequately fill the void."
Number 2867
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Mayor of the City of Pelican, Testified via
teleconference from Pelican, stating that she supports HB 109. The
people of Pelican have suffered many hits already due to the
possible impacts from the closure of the fisheries in Glacier Bay
National Park. The people of Pelican believe that this might fall
within the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, which requires consideration by the federal agencies of
economic impact on adjacent communities. As fisherman go by the
entrance to Glacier Bay National Park and see the possible decrease
of fishing, yet see an increase of cruise ships, it brings many
questions to mind. She asked Representative Ogan, "What if we
should lose the lawsuit that Governor Knowles suggested, would this
have -- serve any risk on the outside waters that might then be in
danger of being closed to fishing?"
Number 2930
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that HB 109, currently as written, would
not assist in controlling the navigable waters that the federal
government has control of. The area of control [Representative
Ogan refers to a map] starts three miles out on the outer coast up
past Lituya Bay and goes to the boundary of Glacier Bay National
Park. That whole three mile area, the adjoining waters and the
area that the federal government is claiming reserved water rights
to, we would not be able [sentence cut off by tape change].
TAPE 99-04, SIDE B [zeroed the tape]
Number 9999
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN continued, saying that it's important if the
state decides not to assent to federal control that they do not
help the federal government. It could be argued in court that the
state is indeed assenting to federal control, because currently
there are joint patrols there and if someone breaks the law the
state helps the federal government with their program.
CHAIR BARNES noted that Section 2 has language similar to that out
of a federal court case, which she recalls possibly relating to the
case out of Colorado, could be the "Brady Bill" , where the U.S.
Supreme Court held that the federal government cannot commandeer
state resources.
Number 9929
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ questioned that without Section 2 it could
lead to a legal argument which a court would recognize that the
state was assisting the federal government and therefore
acquiescing. He asked Representative Ogan, "Do you have any
authority to support that contention?"
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied, no. He said, "You don't know until
you get into court, but I don't think it's an illogical argument
that we got into court and said, ya, they agree with the takeover,
after all they're helping us enforce it."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded, "Unfortunately, logic and the
law are not Siamese twins."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN agreed.
CHAIR BARNES addressed Representative Ogan, stating that he could
agree that some of the language in Section 2 would already have
been ruled on by the United States Supreme Court in the case out of
Colorado, where it is clear that the federal government cannot
commandeer state resources or assets.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded, correct, and that indeed some of the
language in Section 2 is from the Colorado case, which is the Brady
case, but the language was specifically taken out of the New York
v. United States case in 1992.
Number 9831
KEN EICHNER testified via teleconference from Seattle, saying that
he is the owner and operator of the fishing vessel Emily Nicole(ph)
and a 33-year Ketchikan resident. He said that he was asked to
give testimony on HB 109 because of his recent dealings with the
park service in Glacier Bay National Park. He stated his
testimony:
I don't think the federal government has any business
regulating fish and game within the state boundaries,
especially the navigable waters of Alaska. It's very
important to reaffirm the state has not assented to federal
control in Glacier Bay Park. I'm a tanner crab fisherman and
fish in Glacier Bay Park. Under federal control, fishing will
be fazed out in Glacier Bay proper. The crab stocks are very
healthy in the bay, with approximately 25 percent of the
Southeast quota coming from the bay. This is where federal
management makes no sense to close a heathy state fishery out
of the park makes no sense. To close a healthy fishery out of
the park that takes place for only six days in the middle of
winter, while there's no one else using the park, makes no
sense. I think it is impossible for the federal government to
manage fisheries effectively. One, their decisions are more
politically influenced than scientifically influenced. Unlike
the state of Alaska that does a very good job conservatively
managing for sustained yield. Two, a vast majority of the
persons working for the government agencies, like the park
service, are so anti-commercial fishing that complete closure
is their preferred method of management. Further more, they
have proven in the past that they are terrible fish managers.
On to the second part of my testimony, regarding park service
enforcement. On February 17, two days into the six day tanner
crab season, we were boarded by park service enforcement
officers. We were fishing in the waters of Hugh Miller
wilderness area, the same place where we have fished for the
past four seasons. The same place fisherman have been allowed
to fish since it became a wilderness area nearly 20 years ago.
The officers said it was against the law to have gear in the
wilderness area and requested we remove it as soon as
possible. They handed us a news release dated October 21,
1998 outlining areas closed by emergency and grandfathered
areas that can be fished, signed into law 10/21/98. While the
armed officers are telling us it's against the law to fish
where we are, the enforcement vessel is hovering around us
filming with a cam-corder and snapping still pictures as if
collecting evidence. We showed the officers a tanner crab
packet picked up from the state of Alaska prior to the
fishery, showing them that we have no information from the
state that the waters have been closed. They reply, 'It's
against the law to have your gear here. We would like it to
be out of here tomorrow.' After the enforcement vessel left,
we ran out until we could use the cell-phone. Unfortunately
it was 4:30 and we couldn't get anyone we contacted at the
state to say, no it's not closed, you don't have to remove
your gear. So, we had no choice but to remove our gear
fearing legal action against us from the park service. We
removed our gear, losing 24-hours out of six day season and
lost 25 to 50,000 dollars.
After the season we started contacting people about being
kicked out of Hugh Miller. One person I contacted was Gerry
Merrigan of Petersburg Vessel Owners'. He had questioned
Tomie Lee, director of the park service, about mid-way through
the season on what the boardings being conducted were about.
She said in a return letter, 'We are educating people and
asking for voluntary compliance, and are issuing no
citations.' We're positive they were interpreting the
legislation right. It seems the boarding officers forgot to
tell us, or anybody else that I know of that was boarded, that
it was strictly voluntary to move our gear and no citations
would be issued. We would have definitely stayed where we
were if the officers had not told us the full story. This is
why federal management is no good for the state. The park
service is in such a hurry to close the park that they will
deceive and intimidate people to do what they think is right.
As a fisherman, I shouldn't have to quiz an officer or ask him
the right questions to force him to state his full intentions.
He shouldn't hold back the parts of his message that would be
damaging to the park service agenda or his personal agenda.
I absolutely resent what happened to us. I resent the park
service for not revealing their full intentions while on my
vessel, I resent them for wasting my fishing time and I resent
them for blind siding us by not stating their intentions
before the season.
In conclusion, any federal management of state's navigable
waters means lost revenues for the state's fisherman, lost
revenues for the state, political based fished management and
confused fisherman trying to figure out which agency to
believe. I would like to read a quote from the director of
the park service, Tomie Lee, responding to a purse seine
vessel owner's, Gerry Merrigan's, in season questions about
park service boardings, says, 'Gerry Merrigan, I do appreciate
your personal phone call yesterday. I especially appreciate
that you did not blind side me on this matter, you gave me a
chance to answer some of your questions. While we may or may
not reach agreement on all issues, I'm looking forward to
working with you with the same consideration and respect you
have given to me.' I just wish Tomie Lee and the park service
had not blind sided us, and had some respect and consideration
for the fisherman involved in a tanner crab fishery. I just
want to thank Scott Ogan for introducing this bill.
Number 9502
DOUG OGILVY testified via teleconference from Gustavus. He said
that he has lived in Gustavus for the last 20-years and has worked
as a commercial fisherman for the last 22-years. His testimony was
stated as follows:
I'm in favor of the bill. Any statement the state can make
attempting to assert our right to jurisdiction over these
waters is helpful. Also, it would be unfortunate if any of
our state enforcement officers were ever in cooperation with
the federal policy it disagrees with, that the state disagrees
with and feels is illegal, this bill addresses this. The bill
becomes even more pertinent in relation to future
co-management of the waters of the park, outside of Glacier
Bay proper, which with the settlement that Stevens' made this
winter will remain open in future years and is suppose to be
under co-management of the state and federal government. So,
it would give us a little more leverage on that aspect to try
and keep the feds [federal government] from superseding
anything that the state -- that any state management would
have.
Number 9408
KENNETH GRANT, President, Hoonah Indian Association (HIA),
testified via teleconference from Hoonah. He said that the HIA has
not been able to meet and come up with an official statement on HB
109, but that the HIA is in favor of the continuation of fishing
and that's what HB 109 states, so the HIA strongly supports HB 109.
He said that Glacier Bay is part of their ancestral home land and
they'd like to see the continuation of park values and he knows
that the state professes this. Fish and Game has done a good job
in managing the fishery in the park.
MR. GRANT continued, saying that as far as the subsistence part,
the state has come into compliance with (indisc.) [teleconference
sound problems] we'll just wait and see what the state does.
Number 9300
JOHN OBRIEN, SR. stated that he has lived in Alaska since the 1940s
when Alaska was a territory and he remembers that getting
management of fishery resources was a long hard battle for the
Alaskan people. There were powerful interests that were opposed to
Alaska getting control of it's own affairs. It was found out that
the only way Alaska could get management of it's fisheries was for
it to become a state. At the time Alaska was a territory there was
only one Representative in Congress, an excellent Representative,
but he did not have the power to counteract the powerful interests
that were exploiting the Alaskan fisheries at that time. It took
about 25-years of the Alaskan people working on this before Alaska
was granted statehood, as well as, management of it's own affairs.
MR. OBRIEN, SR. further stated that over a period of time Alaska's
rights to manage it's own fisheries is being eroded. It is very
important that the state firm up on seeing that the federal
government ceases assuming power over Alaskan government and
Alaskan people. We see continuing cases of federal employees
wearing pistols among Alaskans who are conducting their livelihood
in a peaceful manner, and this is a frightening development. The
government is assuming more power over the people, and the founding
fathers of our country envision not that the government would have
the power, but that the people would have the power. It is
important that bills of this nature be passed.
Number 9038
PATRICK WRIGHT, President, Scientific Management of Alaska's
Resource Treasures (SMART), testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. He stated, "SMART, as the organization is known, is
dedicated to the preservation of our public trust resources. As
our elected representative, we commend you for your judiciary
responsibilities of the public trust doctrine. I would like to
bring to your attention some resource documents. One, is a book,
Madam Chair, called 'Putting the Public Trust Doctrine to Work'.
It's the application of the public trust doctrine to the management
of land, waters and living resources of a coastal state. This
would be very helpful for all of your committee. Another resource
is a video, produced here in Anchorage by PCS video, called 'Public
Trust Doctrine 101' by Attorney Joseph Pratt(ph)."
CHAIR BARNES interjected that all the members on the committee have
the 'Public Trust Doctrine' book.
MR. WRIGHT continued, "We had some concerns about limiting this
type of legislation only to the Glacier Bay area, because as this
bill states at the time of statehood, there were other places that
had a similar type of situation. Specifically, the Katmai National
Monument at that time, which had adjoining navigable waters and
intertidal zones. In other words, public trust doctrine
jurisdiction. Also, we'd like to bring to your attention of
Article 2, Section 19 of the Alaska Constitution that says that
'the legislature shall pass no local or special Act if a general
Act can be made applicable', and we're suggesting that you need to
take a look at these type of concerns for all the navigable waters
and intertidal lands. We want to thank you for working with the
Governor to maintain the state's sovereignty over fish and game
resources."
Number 8871
PAUL ANDERSON, City Council member, City of Petersburg, testified
via teleconference from Petersburg. He stated that Petersburg is
directly affected by the closer of Glacier Bay National Park, yet
in the environmental assessment it said that Petersburg would have
little economic affect if there was a closure. Petersburg has the
highest percentage of permits in Glacier Bay National Park, whether
it be tanner crab or halibut quotas. He said that he considered a
lawsuit against the NPS against the closure of Glacier Bay National
Park and he commends the legislature on HB 109. This is a start to
what Senator Murkowski is doing with SB 501 and keeping these
waters open to commercial fisheries.
Number 8771
DICK COOSE, Executive Director, Concerned Alaskans for Resource and
Environment (CARE), testified via teleconference from Ketchikan.
He stated, "We support HB 109 and we support access to and the use
of all of our natural resources. The Alaskans continue to lose
this battle as evidence by this Glacier Bay episode and the closing
down of the Tongass by the feds [federal government]. The federal
government continues to deny access, by Alaskans, ... to the
resources. Alaskans must protect their rights under the Alaska and
U.S. Constitution. We are glad that Governor Knowles is standing
up for Alaska's rights and suing the feds [federal government].
It's time. We also support Section 2 of HB 109; why should we
Alaskans help tighten the federal noose around our own necks." He
asked, "Will the Governor's suit prevent the National Park Service
from implementing the proposed regs [regulations] or is an
injunction in order to prevent that regulation from being
implemented until the suit is settled in court?" He concluded,
please pass this legislation.
Number 8687
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that you have to be very close to being
damaged before you can ask for injunctive relief, but that he is
not sure what the Governor's strategy is on that. He said that the
Governor's lawsuit could prevail and that those who have been
around navigable water issues for a while believe that it is the
best case the state has to assert it's sovereignty.
DICK HOFMANN, President, Alaska Trollers Association, stated that
the Alaska Trollers Association is in support of HB 109. The state
should maintain jurisdiction of those waters and the management of
the resources that come from there. He referred to Mr. Coose's
question on injunctive relief, and said that it is an avenue that
should be explored, because if the NPS is preventing people from
fishing, harvest opportunities will be lost that cannot be
regained.
Number 8556
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded, "The Governor gave notice that under
the Quiet Title Act, that the state intends to claim title, and
they must give the feds [federal government] 180 day notice."
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), said, as a representative of ADF&G, that they agree
that it is important to maintain and defend Alaska's right to
manage fish and wildlife. They do have some concerns about what
Section 2 of HB 109 entails, because it contains very broad
language. He wondered how it might affect other activities in
Glacier Bay National Park that ADF&G could be involved with, with
the federal government, regarding fisheries closures.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if Mr. Bruce thought Section 2 was
necessary to convey the state's intent not to relinquish rights in
Glacier Bay National Park.
MR. BRUCE replied that he believes the statement is clear in
Section 1 of HB 109 and that Section 2 is not necessary.
CHAIR BARNES stated, that concludes the public testimony. It would
be the intention of the chair to pass HB 109 from committee, with
the four attached zero fiscal notes.
Number 8341
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ interjected that before the committee
moves the bill he would like to offer an amendment. He made a
motion to delete Section 2 of HB 109.
CHAIR BARNES objected.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected to the amendment. He added that the
previous statement by Mr. Bruce in answer to the question
Representative Berkowitz asked regarding Section 2, may not have
been appropriate, because Mr. Bruce is not an attorney and it
involves some legal strategy. He indicated that he believes it is
important to make a strong statement. On the one hand the state is
saying that they won't assent to federal control, but on the other
hand the state is assisting in the take-over.
Number 8224
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that his concern with Section 2 is
whether or not it has ramifications with regards to other
agreements the state may have with the federal government. He
noted that HB 109 does not have a Judiciary referral and that he is
concerned that HB 109 could go to the floor without official legal
response. He recommended that HB 109 have a Judiciary referral.
CHAIR BARNES responded that she doesn't believe that HB 109 has
judiciary implications and it does have a Resource Committee
referral after this. She noted that she is happy to hold HB 109,
or the questions could be answered in the Resource Committee. She
said that the reason she objected to the amendment was because she
recognizes the language as being language that has already been
ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court as it relates to the
commandeering of state assets. She stated, even if this bill
passes, if there are any agreements that the state has, that this
language would fly in the face of, she will continue to seek
answers.
Number 8070
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that her concerns are the same and
that HB 109 is very strong and she supports the concept of HB 109.
Her concern is with a legal cloud over HB 109 in Section 2. The
question that came to mind was what is the responsibility of the
military. The only bill this committee has before it is HB 109 and
it is up to this committee to decide whether to keep Section 2 in
the bill. She added, this committee has nothing to do with what
the next committee does and she would feel better if this bill was
passed out of the committee without a legal cloud over it.
CHAIR BARNES stated that she doesn't see anything in HB 109 that
relates to the military.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS replied that none of the members on the
committee have any legal background, with the exception of
Representative Berkowitz. She stated that the committee is unable
to clarify whether or not there is going to be a legal cloud.
CHAIR BARNES said that HB 109 could be held over or the committee
can vote on the amendment. She reiterated that she objects to the
amendment because Section 2 doesn't seem to affect the state's
regulatory process, but without Section 2 it could be said that the
state has assented to federal control.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS pointed out that the reason she brought in
the military was the language from Section 2, "the federal
government cannot commandeer", but the federal government can
commandeer all Alaskan National Guard if there was a necessity for
controlling associated waterways.
Number 7892
CHAIR BARNES reiterated that the language in Section 2, which says,
"that the federal government cannot commandeer the lawmaking
processes of the states to compel the state to enact and enforce a
federal regulatory program, an agency, employee, or agent of the
state may not expend funds to adopt, enforce, or otherwise assist
in the implementation of the federal regulatory program", is
language that she recognizes from the Brady case which arose out of
the Brady gun law that was ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court that
said, "the federal government cannot commandeer state assets."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ offered a hypothetical example. Imagine
that there has been a homicide in Glacier Bay National Park and
federal officers are the first ones on the scene and they need
backup. The way HB 109 is currently written prevents the state
from providing backup.
Number 7795
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN addressed Representative Berkowitz requesting
that he read a little farther where HB 109 states, "the state may
not expend funds to adopt, enforce, or otherwise assist in the
implementation of the federal regulatory program for control of
fish and game in the park", meaning that it doesn't have anything
to with felony actions.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS remarked that there could be a felony
action involving fish and game.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded, that's true.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS confirmed, "Therefore, it could."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that it could involve the "Lacy Act". The
scenario that Representative Berkowitz was talking about had to do
with an act against a person. He said, "The Lacy Act is a federal
Act and it's a federal law and the feds [federal government] can
enforce it."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that the point he was trying to make,
with regards to the homicide example, was that if there was a
situation, possibly involving fish and game, that needed backup law
enforcement the safety of the officers involved could be
compromised. He reconfirmed that Section 2 is unnecessary to pass
on the message. The message is clear in Section 1, where it
states, 'the state has not assented to federal control of fish and
game'. The more language that is out there, the more difficulties,
from a legal perspective, you wind up inviting.
Number 7619
CHAIR BARNES requested a roll call vote on the motion to remove
Section 2 from HB 109. Representatives Phillips, Green and
Berkowitz voted in favor of removing Section 2 of HB 109.
Representatives Cowdery, Masek, and Barnes voted against it.
Representative Joule was not present. Therefore, the motion to
remove Section 2 from HB 109 failed by a vote of 3-3.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HB 109 from the
committee with individual recommendation and attached fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS objected.
Number 7518
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that many people have testified in
the meeting today and have voiced their concerns with the problems
associated with federal control of fish and game management. This
is a small snap-shot of what could happen if the subsistence
problem is not resolved in a way that retains state management.
The reason he supports HB 109 is because he supports state
management, in Glacier Bay National Park, as well as, across the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that she supports HB 109 and the
concept, but she feels that the legal questions still need to be
answered.
CHAIR BARNES said that she will do whatever is necessary to find
the answers to Representative Phillips questions.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS interjected that her vote is only for this
committee.
CHAIR BARNES reminded Representative Phillips that she also has a
vote on the floor of the House and those same questions can be
raised there. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives
Cowdery, Masek and Barnes voted in favor of moving the bill.
Representatives Phillips, Green and Berkowitz voted against it.
Representative Joule was not present. Therefore, HB 109 failed to
move out of committee by a vote of 3-3.
HJR 15 - SUPPORT AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY ACT
Number 7283
CHAIR BARNES announced the next order of business was House Joint
Resolution No. 15, "Relating to support for an 'American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act' in the United States Congress."
MYRNA MCGHIE, Legislative Administrative Assistant for
Representative Jeannette James, Alaska State Legislature, stated
that the language of HJR 15 has been changed since the drafting of
the bill and there is an amendment.
CHAIR BARNES clarified that when HJR 15 is moved out of committee,
the amendment will be moved to bring the resolution in compliance
with what is presently before the U.S. Congress.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS requested, in the interest of time and due
to the fact that the bill was supported last year, that the
committee move to make the amendment on it and vote to support
this.
CHAIR BARNES concurred with Representative Phillips, and
acknowledged that people were standing by to testify.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 of HJR
15. There being no objection, the amendment was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HJR 15, as amended,
from the committee with the attached fiscal note and asked
unanimous consent. There being no objection, CSHJR 15(WTR) was
moved out of committee with individual recommendation.
TAPE 99-05, SIDE A
Number 0026
CHAIR BARNES apologized to the people that testified on HB 109 for
the committee's inability to move it from committee, but assured
them that the committee would continue to work on it.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated, "It's extremely important that we put
on the record that Glacier Bay National Park is a biosphere
reserve. The one thing that we're wanting here to happen, that is
part of the man-in-the-biosphere convention which has never been
accepted by the U.S. Senate. It's very important, and I wouldn't
have -- I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of the problems
we're having in Glacier Bay now is because of the fact that it is
a biosphere reserve, and that's working underneath all of the other
issues. I had to say that."
CHAIR BARNES asked Representative James to point out that a
biosphere reserve is not just the area within the national park,
but is a 250 mile circumference around the park.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified that there is a core area where
nothing is supposed to happen, a surrounding area with very limited
human input and than the area around that is where normal
activities take place.
CHAIR BARNES noted that she is greatful that Representative James
continues to discuss these issues.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0217
CHAIR BARNES adjourned the House Special Committee on World Trade
and State/Federal Relations at 6:42 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|