04/01/2016 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB163 | |
| Presentation: Food Security | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 1, 2016
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator Mia Costello, Vice Chair
Senator John Coghill
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Bill Stoltze
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 163
"An Act relating to the nomination and designation of state
water as outstanding national resource water; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PRESENTATION: FOOD SECURITY
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 163
SHORT TITLE: NATL. RES. WATER NOMINATION/DESIGNATION
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/29/16 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/29/16 (S) RES, FIN
02/15/16 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/15/16 (S) Heard & Held
02/15/16 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/07/16 (S) RES AT 4:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/07/16 (S) Heard & Held
03/07/16 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/14/16 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/14/16 (S) Heard & Held
03/14/16 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/16/16 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/16/16 (S) Heard & Held
03/16/16 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/01/16 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHELLE HALE, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the changes in version I of SB
163.
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 163.
CHRIS PELOSO, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Commercial and Fair Business Section
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 163.
KEVIN BROOKS, Deputy Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 163 and Mr. Fogels' comments.
EMMIE VAN WYHEN, University of Alaska intern for Senator Giessel
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Organized the presentation on food security
in Alaska.
BRYCE WRIGLEY, President
Alaska Farm Bureau, and
CEO and Co-owner Alaska Flour Co.
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on food security in Alaska.
SARRA KHLIFI, Manager
Alaska Food Coalition (AFC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on food security in Alaska.
LAUREN SILL, Subsistence Resource Specialist
Division of Subsistence
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on food security in Alaska.
KEN METER, President
Crossroads Resource Center
Minneapolis, MN
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on food security in Alaska.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:04 PM
CHAIR CATHY GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Costello, Stedman, Coghill, Stoltze, and
Chair Giessel.
SB 163-NATL. RES. WATER NOMINATION/DESIGNATION
3:30:41 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced consideration of SB 163. She said this
is the fifth hearing; the last hearing was on March 16 and
public testimony had been heard and closed.
3:30:46 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
SENATOR COSTELLO moved to adopt CSSB 163 ( ), labeled 29-
GS2916\I, as the working document.
CHAIR GIESSEL objected for purposes of explanation.
3:31:25 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the committee.
3:31:31 PM
MICHELLE HALE, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), Anchorage, Alaska, explained
the changes in version I of SB 163 as follows:
1. Page 1, line 7: changes the name of Tier 3 waters
to outstanding state resource waters instead of
national waters.
2. Page 1, lines 9-10: adds that the Legislature may
remove a designation.
3. Page 1, line 12 - page 3, line 7: rather than have
the process for submittal of nomination information
and public notice established in regulation
(AS46.03.085(c) in the original bill), the CS
establishes an eleven point criteria a nomination must
include, and adds a fee (Section 46.03.135(b)(1)
through (11)). The fee for a completeness
determination of the nomination information.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked for a discussion of the fee.
MS. HALE replied the fee language is on page 3, line 7, and it
is $1,000. It is to provide the agency with resources for making
the completeness determination. That's not the analysis, but
just in-taking the information, reviewing it, and making sure
that it adheres to the previous 10 criteria in that section.
3:33:57 PM
4. Page 3, line 9: Adds a six month timeline for the
department to determine that a nomination is complete
in AS 46.03.145
5. Page 3, lines 10-25: Allows for the department to
enter into an agreement with a nominator for the
nominator to reimburse the department for the costs
related to the analyses (not related to the
completeness determination) of the nomination process
including public notice, preparation of the findings,
analyses and determinations related to the nomination
to the legislature. The agreement that the department
would enter into would also include money to reimburse
the other resource agencies for the work that they do.
So ADF&G and DNR would be included in that agreement
and DEC would basically RSA the money to them.
Alternatively, the department can prepare a cost
estimate for processing a nomination and forward that
to the legislature for consideration as a capital
appropriation.
3:35:18 PM
6. Page 3, line 31 - through page 4, line 2: outlines
that the department shall establish a process for
providing public notice, including individual notice
to land owners, and for prioritizing nominations in AS
46.03.155. And provides a process of prioritizing
nominations.
7. Page 4, line 10 - page 5, line 16: Before
transmitting nominations to the legislature, adds that
the department must certify a nomination complete; in
consultation with DNR and DF&G, determine that the
water has exceptional characteristics; in consultation
with DNR and DF&G create a report analyzing certain
factors related to the nomination including analysis
of risk that the water will be degraded, and the pros
and cons of alternatives available to preserve the
water in AS 46.03.165.
3:36:38 PM
8. Page 5, lines 17-23: Clarifies that a list of
nominations from the preceding four calendar years is
submitted to the legislature in the first regular
session of each legislature after January 2018, while
entire nomination packets for nominations certified
complete in the preceding two calendar years are
submitted in AS 46.03.175.
9. Page 5, lines 24-29: Requires the state resource
agencies (DNR and DEC) to submit a report to the
legislature every ten years beginning in 2020 on the
status of designated waters and recommendations on
continuation of the designations.
10. Page 5, line 30 - page 6, line 4: Provides
language describing how the department shall manage a
designated water to maintain its existing water
quality and only allow discharges that result in
temporary lowering of water quality in AS 46.03.185.
11. Page 6, lines 5-7: clarifies that a water cannot
be managed as an outstanding state resource water
until it has been designated as such.
12. Page 6, line 10-14: provides a definition of
"resident" and "waters of the United States" in AS
46.03.195.
13. Page 6, lines 15-19: adds uncodified law that the
department's first submittal of nominations to the
legislature be after 2018.
3:38:51 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE said Commissioner Hartig talked about finding
the middle ground and asked if she would describe this as middle
ground.
MS. HALE answered yes, adding that they had worked very hard
listening to comments and from the Senate Resources Committee to
find that middle ground.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked her to explained the error in citing the CFR
on page 6, line 14.
MS. HALE said the citation on line 14 is 40 CFR 230.3 and it
should be 40 CFR 122.2. Both are definitions of waters of the
U.S.; they just refer to different parts of the CFR and 122.2 is
more appropriate to point source discharges.
CHAIR GIESSEL said they would correct that after they adopt the
CS.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if a tribe can apply for a
designation under this bill.
MS. HALE said the definition of resident of the state is defined
in AS 01.10.055 and it is quite broad. It doesn't specifically
call out tribes, but it does call out organizations and any
person. For example, the chief of a tribe would be a person or
resident of the state.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the CS requires the legislature to
formally consider a nomination after a person has paid the
$1,000 fee.
MS. HALE answered that nothing in the CS requires the
legislature to formally consider that nomination. It just
outlines the process the departments go through for their
analyses and for getting that information to the legislature,
and then it's up to the legislature to decide what they want to
do with it.
CHAIR GIESSEL said the $1000 fee is to pay for staff time used
to make sure the application is complete.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how DEC will prioritize the
nominations.
3:41:50 PM
MS. HALE said that DEC would write regulations to clarify that,
but one example of prioritizing those nominations would be the
completeness of it. So, a large report with a lot of detail in
it might have a higher priority than a simple letter.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the DEC believes any waters
deserve protection right now.
MS. HALE said she wouldn't know how to answer that question.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if DEC has evaluated any waters and
come to the conclusion that they should be protected as natural
resource waters.
MS. HALE answered no.
3:43:09 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked why the administration brought this bill
forward at this time.
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), Juneau, Alaska, answered that the DEC is lead on this
issue, but from DNR's perspective the Clean Water Act (CWA)
requires the state to have this program. If the state doesn't
develop its own program the concern is that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) could impose its own program.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he wanted to pose that question to DEC, as
well.
3:44:43 PM
MS. HALE said DEC has been through the process over the last
several years of actually putting its anti-degradation
implementation procedures in regulation. It has been a very
public process. The requirement to have a process for
designating Tier 3 waters is in the CFR in the CWA and they are
committed to finalizing it. This bill arose at this time as an
"outgrowth of the work on those anti-degradation implementation
procedures."
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if it is related to the three current
requests that are on the list for Tier 3 waters.
MS. HALE answered the fact that they have those three requests
is separate from the proposed legislation, although they are
related. That is not what drove the legislation.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if Alaska had a choice in adopting an
anti-degradation policy in 1997 under the CWA.
MS. HALE replied that it is a requirement.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if language on page 3, lines 8-16:
"Within six months after receiving a nomination the department
shall determine whether the nomination meets the requirements.
If after six months no determination is made...." means it
automatically is concluded that the nomination meets the
requirements and asked if there is some sort of penalty if the
work isn't done within six months.
MS. HALE replied that she didn't know the answer to that
question.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said if the public nominates a waterway
could they reasonably conclude that if six months passes and a
determination hasn't been made, that it's automatically deemed
to be a complete application.
3:47:48 PM
MS. HALE replied that it would certainly be her intent to meet
that six month deadline, but their attorney could better address
that.
3:47:51 PM
CHRIS PELOSO, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Commercial and Fair Business Section, Department of Law (DOL),
Juneau, Alaska, said he believed under state law, the nominator
would be able to bring a suit or a complaint against the DEC for
failure to meet its deadlines and a judge could order them to
make a determination.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI supposed that a judge did that and added
that then it would still have to go to the legislature. He asked
if a remedy is available if the legislature doesn't take any
action.
MR. PELOSO answered no; neither the DEC nor the courts can force
the legislature to consider or take action on a bill.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if this legislation passes, could the
citizens of Alaska designate a water body by ballot initiative.
MR. PELOSO answered that a person could decide to go through the
ballot initiative process.
CHAIR GIESSEL added that the initiative would be submitted to
the lieutenant governor who would then ask the Department of Law
(DOL) if it was legal.
MR. PELOSO said that was correct.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he has an opinion about whether or
not - if this passes and the determination process is turned
over to the legislature - if it fails to act if the people of
Alaska could legally designate a waterway through a ballot
initiative.
MR. PELOSO replied from his understanding of the state
constitution, the legislature is a body that would designate
this type of water body through a number of processes. If a bill
came forward for a water body that clearly didn't meet the
qualifications, it would be incumbent upon the Senate, or the
voters in a ballot initiative, to make the determination that
that waterway didn't deserve protection.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if it was his opinion that the people
of Alaska could through a ballot initiative to nominate a
waterway if this bill passes.
MR. PELOSO said he believed that is the case whether or not they
pass the bill.
3:51:31 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said that issue is worthy of further
discussion. "Doesn't Kelso v. Rivichek in '96 define the fact
that the state has the discretion in developing water quality
regulations?"
MR. PELOSO said he would have to look at that case law.
SENATOR MICCICHE said Mr. Peloso made a statement that he
believes the people have the right to designate water quality
regulations and he wasn't sure that is the case. It is a valid
and important question to which he wanted more information on.
He added that the DEC currently has the authority to designate
an NROW.
MS. HALE answered that there is some real ambiguity in terms of
who has that authority; either it's authority granted to the
legislature by the constitution or the authority is granted to
the DEC through the Water Quality statute.
SENATOR MICCICHE said the governor made the policy choice to
have the designation authority rest with the legislature and not
with the DEC.
3:53:21 PM
MS. HALE said the governor did make the choice to put this bill
forward, but it is also the DEC's belief that the decision to
designate a waterway more appropriately rests with the
legislature.
SENATOR COSTELLO said she wanted to clarify her response to
Senator Wielechowski's question. She understands the way the
bill is written that nominations that are forwarded to the
legislature by the department would be in the form of just a
report, not in the form of a bill.
MS. HALE said that is correct; it would be in the form of a
nomination with the backup information.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if an administration would be able to
both forward a nomination in the form of a report and a bill
that is introduced on behalf of the administration.
MR. PELOSO answered yes. He thought a bill for nominating a
water body would be simple: amending the statute by adding or
subtracting waters off the list.
3:55:13 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO said if this were to pass, statute would say
that only the legislature could designate an Outstanding State
Natural Resource Water (OSNRW) and asked if it was his opinion
that a citizens' initiative could trump that state statute.
MR. PELOSO replied that he would have to do more research on how
ballot initiatives work.
CHAIR GIESSEL said they would get an opinion from the Department
of Law on that.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said one of the requirements is that the
entirety of the water nominated is a water of the United States
(page 4, line 13) and asked if that means if a river flows
through Canada and comes into Alaska that it could not be
nominated.
MS. HALE answered that it is the "entirety of the water that is
nominated" that needs to be part of the United States.
Frequently one will see segments nominated in other states
rather than the entire reach of the river.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked when DEC submits its packet of
information to the legislature can they expect a recommendation
to accompany it to make the nomination or not.
MS. HALE answered that it isn't called a recommendation, but
rather a thorough analysis.
3:57:49 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE asked how the $1000 completeness review fee was
determined and if it actually covers the cost of the review.
MS. HALE answered that the department has a lot of fees for
services and is accustomed to the extent of work that can be
done with a fee. The fee is a rough estimate based on how
similar to other work it is.
SENATOR STOLTZE said it's easy to get waiver variances for
things like septic or discharge systems and asked if the fee is
to discourage frivolous applications or does it come anywhere
near covering staff cost for the review.
MS. HALE said she is familiar with the kind of analysis the
engineers do for those types of waivers and this work is very
different in nature - a completeness determination and not an
engineering analysis. The workload is similar, though.
SENATOR STOLTZE asked if it is a similar staff commitment to
review a septic system for a small lot as to analyze and review
a river application that is permanent. Would $1000 cover all
staff time and public process required or was it just a nominal
fee to have some skin in the game? He was trying to develop an
understanding.
MS. HALE pointed to Section AS 46.03.145 on page 3, lines 8-25,
that says the analysis and public notice costs he is describing
would not be covered by the $1000 fee. The purpose of the
$1,000-fee is simply to determine if the 11 criteria in the
original section are met. Other costs for public notice and in-
depth analysis would be covered in a negotiated agreement that
the department would negotiate with the nominator.
CHAIR GIESSEL said that was helpful and added that the final
sentence says a capital appropriation would be needed and that
would be the fiscal note.
MS. HALE added that the fiscal note does not contain a capital
appropriation. It is a multi-year operating appropriation for
statutorily designated program receipts. So, it's essentially an
empty appropriation until the negotiation is agreed to and
signed. The program receipts would then be used to fund the DEC
work or to RSA to DNR and ADF&G.
CHAIR GIESSEL said although that is true, this certainly leaves
a potential for future fiscal notes related to this kind of
legislation. It appears that one can negotiate, because line 13
says the "resident shall reimburse the department for the costs
or a portion of the costs incurred by the department or another
state agency related to the nomination process."
MS. HALE said further on they will talk about this potential
capital appropriation, but right now they are in the situation
of not knowing what the budget is going to be forever or how
each negotiation will work out. So, there is an attempt to
provide some flexibility.
4:04:38 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said it appears that the bill's whole focus
is on nominations from residents and asked if it is possible for
the governor, the legislature, a legislator, or a committee to
nominate a waterway. Could a community such as Juneau or Haines
nominate a water way?
MS. HALE answered that she didn't have the definitions in AS
01.10.060 with her, but "resident" is defined quite broadly in
that section. "Resident of the state" in the definition section
means "an individual who establishes residency under AS
01.10.055," and .060 has the actual definition of resident that
includes, for example, organizations.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the governor or a legislator has
to write a check for $1,000 if they want to nominate a waterway.
He said the whole bill seems geared towards private citizens as
opposed to "sort of the normal legislative process."
MS. HALE answered that it has been DEC's understanding that if
the legislature wanted to designate a water body as a Tier 3 or
an ONRW water, they could do that themselves without this
process. The governor could probably introduce a bill.
4:06:28 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked DNR Deputy Commissioner Fogels if he
could recall a 2014 ballot initiative on Bristol Bay watershed
and what it asked about that watershed.
MR. FOGELS answered that he remembered it requiring legislative
approval of any large mining development in the Bristol Bay
watershed after all the permits are issued.
SENATOR MICCICHE said a similar effort is sort of going on here.
MR. FOGELS responded that it is similar in that a significant
decision is being deferred to the legislature, but he didn't
know the thinking of the folks who put that initiative forward.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he would try to contact them and find out.
SENATOR COSTELLO said language on page 1, lines 7-10, say that
only the legislature can designate, but page 11 talks about a
nomination and its requirements and asked if the legislature
were to designate a water body would the requirements apply to a
bill. Common sense says that it would, but the language of the
bill doesn't really cover that.
4:09:40 PM
MS. HALE answered the requirements for the nomination are just
that; the purpose is to make sure there is sufficient analysis
and that information gets presented to the legislature. Then it
is up to the legislature to do what they want; they could
include the information in the designation or they might do
something else. For example, Commissioner Hartig has spoken of
the fact that the legislature has broad powers, so they may
designate something that is slightly less protected than a Tier
3 water but very protected still.
SENATOR COSTELLO thanked her, but said it didn't get to the
point of her question which is if the designation were entirely
generated from the legislative branch absent a nomination with
all of the information, could the legislature designate a Tier 3
without meeting the requirements set out, for example, on page
2, line 14, that it has exceptional ecological, economic, or
recreational significance.
MS. HALE replied that it is her understanding that the
legislature can do whatever it wants to. The Tier 3 definition
is very broad and talks about these exceptional characteristics,
but they have also talked about a very high level of water
quality or something that is unique, for example, Mono Lake in
California.
SENATOR STOLTZE said given ADF&G's constitutional and legal
responsibilities of sustainability and habitat protection and
DNR's constitutional responsibility under Article 8, he wanted
to know if either department has any concerns about this
legislation compromising their mission.
4:12:39 PM
MR. FOGELS answered that the department supports SB 163 and it
will be able to continue fulfilling its mission of managing
Alaska's water and other natural resources for the good of the
people if it passes. They want to make sure if they are going to
designate Tier 3 waters that the legislature and the people
understand what that means and what restrictions might be placed
on that water, so that that decision can be made very carefully,
because it could have implications down the road.
KEVIN BROOKS, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), said he also supported SB 163 and Mr. Fogels'
comments. They feel the bill provides the department an
opportunity to bring its valuable expertise on water bodies to
the table.
SENATOR STOLTZE asked if any provisions of this legislation
would be deleterious or harmful to their ability to manage fish
resources.
MR. BROOKS replied that although a compromised water body would
certainly affect fish, this bill provides a process for dealing
with that.
4:15:11 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted an incorrect CFR citation on page 6, line 14
that was a drafting error brought to their attention by DEC.
SENATOR STEDMAN moved conceptual Amendment 1 on page 6, line 14,
of CSSB 168, version I, to delete "230.3" and inserting "122.2".
So it would read "2. Waters of the United States has the meaning
given in 40 CFR 122.2, as that section read on the effective
date of this act".
4:16:44 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL said they needed to adopt the CS first and asked
if there was objection to adopting CSSB 168, version \I. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR STEDMAN moved to conceptually amend the previous
amendment. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there is a different definition of
waters of the United States that 40 CFR 230.3 didn't cover.
CHAIR GIESSEL objected for discussion and invited Ms. Hale to
clarify.
MS. HALE said the waters of the US rule, which is currently
stayed because of litigation, has a definition of "waters of the
US" at 230.3, but there are numerous other definitions of
"waters of the US" throughout the CFR. The definition at 122.2
is the more appropriate definition of the purposes here: point
source discharges, for example, and discharges under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what 40 CFR 230 deals with.
MS. HALE answered that 40 CFR 230.3 deals with the Dredge and
Fill Program.
4:19:00 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if the committee could get both
definitions in 40 CFR 122.2 and 230.3 just to see them side by
side at some point.
CHAIR GIESSEL said absolutely and asked Ms. Hale to get them.
She removed her objection and asked if there was further
objection to adopting the amendment.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if it would be possible to wait until
they get the two definitions side-by-side.
CHAIR GIESSEL replied that she was planning to set the bill
aside as soon as they determine what to do with the amendment
and tomorrow Ms. Hale can get the definitions for them.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI reiterated it seems that the committee
should wait to make the decision on the amendment until they had
the definitions.
CHAIR GIESSEL said the committee could amend it tomorrow if he
found the definition is incorrect. Finding no further objections
and said the amendment was adopted. She held SB 163 in committee
awaiting the definitions from Ms. Hale.
^Presentation: Food Security
Presentation: Food Security
4:21:21 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the committee would next hear an
overview on Food Security, a project conducted by her University
of Alaska Fairbanks intern.
4:21:27 PM
EMMIE VAN WYHEN, University of Alaska intern for Senator
Giessel, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, thanked her
for the opportunity to bring a number of speakers on the topic
of food security in Alaska and the various aspects of it
including the vulnerability of the food system, food production,
hunger in Alaska, subsistence, and the economic potential for
Alaska to start producing more.
ALASKANS FEEDING ALASKA
BRYCE WRIGLEY, President, Alaska Farm Bureau, and CEO and Co-
owner Alaska Flour Co., Delta Junction, Alaska, said he had been
farming in Delta for a little over 30 years. In 2011 he started
the Alaska Flour Co., because there was no flour mill in Alaska
nor in northern Canada, the primary purpose being to address
food insecurity in Alaska. Alaska Flour grinds its barley that
it has raised on the farm and makes cereal and couscous, which
are available on the market in Alaska.
MR. WRIGLEY said he is also president of the Alaska Farm Bureau
and a number of years ago the bureau started a project called
the Alaska Food Independence Project to raise awareness of food
security in Alaska, an effort that morphed into the Alaska Food
Policy Council.
MR. WRIGLEY said the bureau represents the interests of over
1,000 farm families throughout the state. He also represents the
interests of Alaskans who desire to source local, healthy, food
products.
4:25:08 PM
He is aware the legislature is involved in closing the fiscal
gap, but noted that "we are also free to agonize over those
fiscal matters because we have full bellies." Alaska's food
system is subject to a number of threats that at any time could
become urgent. He believes in preparing for that possibility
rather than hoping it will never happen.
4:26:26 PM
MR. WRIGLEY said that Alaska has a number challenges; one is
that its transportation line is very extended; another is that
it has few redundancies. For example, a broke-down barge
resulted in a week's delay in getting groceries to some Interior
places; ice has blocked the Port of Anchorage before, and
volcanos have erupted. These, as well as strikes on the West
Coast, bad weather, and road washouts in Canada are all
influences that impact Alaska's food system. Alaskans have
already experienced these things, but once everything is up and
running again people tend to forget until the next time.
MR. WRIGLEY said these incidents should serve as a wakeup call
and it is incumbent on everyone to put a solution in place while
there is time. It can happen anywhere in the transportation
chain. Alaska has 3-5 day supply of food on its shelves.
Something that disrupts transportation for a week would be felt
immediately. If a disruption happened for a couple of weeks,
people would be in a world of hurt. The possibility of an
earthquake in Alaska or the Pacific Northwest where all of our
stuff is sourced from could put us in even more dire straits.
What would it take to achieve a significant measure of food
security in Alaska? Mr. Wrigley said he believes the state
should set a goal of achieving a 90-day supply of food that will
provide a balanced diet. They recommend about 25 percent of the
food system be locally sourced and that that local food move
through a normal distribution chain that is part of what is
currently being used. That way it doesn't have to be warehoused
or rotated and it doesn't cost the state any money to have
people there to make sure it's not outdated - just the normal
ebb and flow of commerce moves it through the distribution chain
and takes care of the rotation. Rather than have the food
squirreled away in a warehouse someplace at huge expense, the
food is stored on the farms, in the flocks and the herds, and
barns and silos in Alaska. That becomes Alaska's food storage
system.
MR. WRIGLEY said food doesn't have to be held all in one place
to provide food security; it just has to be available. It can be
on the hoof or growing as part of that system. It needs to be
continually used and continually replenished. Setting a goal
focuses the state's attention on that goal. Without a goal
everyone goes off in different directions and nothing gets
accomplished.
4:30:53 PM
How much does Alaska need for a 90-day supply of food? Mr.
Wrigley said Alaska has close to half of what it needs in
potatoes and close to what it needs in number of carrots, but
for milk, grains, meat, and poultry its way off the mark. He
elaborated that the food needs to be part of the state's food
system. In most cases the amounts are achievable within a few
years. It isn't so much a problem of producing the food at this
level as it is of being able to access the food system.
His graph showed a leaky bucket representing the economy and
said there are two ways of strengthening Alaska's economy. You
either put more money in it or you plug up some of the leaks. He
proposed plugging one of the leaks and that being the amount of
food dollars that immediately leave the state. Doing that would
also add revenue to the economy.
MR. WRIGLEY said Alaskans spend billions of dollars on food each
year, less than 5 percent of which is produced in Alaska.
Increasing that to 25 percent could represent over $700 million.
Compare that with the Department of Revenue's 2016 estimate of
$800 million in oil production and that is a pretty significant
leak. Applying a modest multiplier of 2.13 to those direct sales
would result in $1.6 billion in economic activity for the state.
This does not account for any of the socio-economic benefits of
agriculture on communities and rural areas and the stability in
those communities that agriculture typically provides.
MR. WRIGLEY said Alaska has a number of opportunities that a
strong local food system provides beyond the economic activity.
It has strong possibilities for markets if it is branded
correctly: for example: a relative lack of disease for seed
production and the whole perception of pristine and wild.
4:34:24 PM
MR. WRIGLEY said it should be clear that increasing food
security is talking about the important-but-much-maligned sector
of Alaska's economy called agriculture. He asked if they had
ever wondered why people farm, and "It's not to make them rich."
Most farmers work another job. They have a "character flaw" that
drives them to spend their time trying to feed their local
communities.
4:36:11 PM
He said that Ken Meter had estimated that if every Alaskan spent
$5 a week on locally grown food, it would add up to $187 million
annually. This has become known as the five-dollar challenge.
Last year a legislative audit revealed that the state purchased
$41.6 million in food through its contracts and 1.2 percent of
that was sourced locally. The state can do better than 1.2
percent, especially when it is investing in Alaska's security.
MR. WRIGLEY had several inexpensive recommendations for
developing a local food industry in Alaska. One was for the
state to review policies and regulations to encourage the
development of a local food system. An example of a policy that
can be detrimental is the Wild Sheep Foundation that attempted
to pass Proposition 90, which would place costly burdens on
domestic sheep and goat ranchers in Alaska even though there is
virtually no interaction between the domestic and the wild
herds. The result would have been to force many of those farmers
to get rid of their flocks. Another regulation that seems
counter to encouraging production is FDA's requirement that
irrigation water be tested before it can be applied to crops
when many generations in Alaska have irrigated with river water.
Involving farmers in the regulatory review of these policies
will help agencies see things from a different perspective. The
incentive to compel agencies to undertake such a review will
have to come from the top, either legislative or administrative.
4:39:03 PM
Secondly, Alaska should mount a focused public relations
campaign to encourage Alaskans to purchase locally grown food. A
number of states already aggressively do this. Having a market
is essential to increasing food production and the state could
do much to open those doors. Legislative and administrative
support are great influencers. Put something in newsletters,
mention it to constituencies at speaking engagements, and lead
by example by using locally grown food yourselves.
He said the state has the ability to open new and larger markets
for local food by purchasing it directly from farmers or by
requiring a certain percentage of local items be sourced locally
in their contracts. The wording in food contracts could greatly
increase the market share of state purchased food in its
institutions, food service establishments and receptions. He
mentioned the Governor's Alaskan Grown Dinner sponsored by the
Alaska Farm Bureau that many attended this year. He hoped it
opened their eyes to the variety of food and quality that can be
raised in Alaska and the possibility of a stronger food system
that keeps more Alaskan dollars in the state.
MR. WRIGLEY closed saying:
Many Alaskans think that their food comes from the
grocery stores, and just for the record, the stores do
not grow food. When it doesn't come in on the barge or
the truck, the stores run out of it. Ignorance about
the relationship between farms, food, and stores is no
excuse, nor will it make us more secure.
This is something we can immediately begin working on
and at very little cost to the state. And even if
there is never another disaster or strike or breakdown
in transportation, it's still something that will
benefit Alaska forever....
4:41:24 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE remembered that in 2013 Governor Parnell
responded to HCR 1 with an administrative order by creating a
subcabinet Food Policy Council and the DEC was mentioned as a
participant because of their regulatory policies that could be
forestalling opportunities to do things in a short growing
season. The Department of Corrections is a major customer, as is
the Department of Education, and many others. However, the
council has not met during this administration. He asked Mr.
Wrigley if he followed or participated in any of those meetings.
MR. WRIGLEY answered yes; he was aware of them meeting twice.
The first was a get-to-know-you meeting and the second was a
follow-up. He hoped that council could be reactivated with a
much more directed purpose.
SENATOR COSTELLO said she is interested in seeing more Alaska
grown food in Alaskan schools. She is concerned that there are
children who will spend their entire education years in the
Alaska school system never having once eaten Alaska salmon at
lunch. Schools tend to have frozen meals that are in a bag. This
is a missed opportunity and the legislature has a responsibility
to provide those opportunities. She asked him to contact the
Anchorage School District to discuss how to bring more Alaska
grown food to school children.
MR. WRIGLEY said he would be happy to do that, adding that his
company has sold flour to the Anchorage School District and
currently sells flour and couscous to the Mat-Su School
District. A number of Bush school districts, also, are using
some of their products. He knows there is a lot of interest on
their part, because another effort was a $3 million grant to the
schools to use locally grown food and that made a significant
contribution to getting the school doors open. After two years
of running, they are still getting calls and orders from that
program.
SENATOR MICCICHE mentioned the positive effects 4H programs have
on families. In his area, the difference between the success
rates is "astounding." Something went wrong that brought the 50
percent of home grown food in the '50s and '60s down to the 4
percent that is raised today.
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked Mr. Wrigley for his presentation and
invited Ms. Khlifi to provide her presentation.
4:50:01 PM
SARRA KHLIFI, Manager, Alaska Food Coalition (AFC), Juneau,
Alaska, said she would talk about food security in a little
different context. She said the AFC is a statewide group of
roughly 120 non-profit, faith-based, and state agencies. They
convene to discuss issues of food security and issues people are
facing throughout the state. Today she wanted to focus attention
on who is hungry in Alaska and why there are gaps in food
security for some people.
MS. KHLIFI said she will cover food insecurity definitions and
data, causes and correlations, the changing face of hunger,
client demographics, programs available to address hunger in
Alaska, and health factors.
She said one of the issues in food security that they generally
work with is making sure a household has access by all members
of the family to enough food for an active, healthy lifestyle,
to be contributing members of society and making sure that that
food is also nutritionally adequate and safe to consume. In
contrast, food insecurity is limited or uncertain availability
of nutritionally adequate and safe foods.
She said the USDA describes food security in a range: high food
security is not having any food access issues or limitations and
on the other end of that spectrum is very low food security,
which is disrupted eating patterns, reduced food intake. Low
food security is an issue in other parts of the state where
there is a variety in access to food, but a lot of the times
it's just not adequate for the family and individual needs.
4:52:39 PM
Who is hungry in Alaska? Ms. Khlifi said an estimated 104,750 of
Alaskans (14.2 percent) are hungry or food insecure. Of that,
about 20 percent of the children (37,590 children) live in homes
without enough food or are food insecure. A relatively high
percentage of boroughs in Alaska have extreme barriers to food
security. The Northwest Arctic and Bethel are at about 21
percent and the Yukon Koyukuk region is at 20.8 percent.
Anchorage is at 12.3 percent (36,000 Alaskans) and the Kenai is
at about 13 percent (3,710 Alaskans); 11,370 Alaskans in the
Mat-Su Borough, and 13,050 in Fairbanks have extreme barriers to
food security. In Southeast, Ketchikan has 13.8 percent food
insecure Alaskans. Ms. Khlifi said there is a total of 37,590
food insecure children in Alaska.
4:54:29 PM
MS. KHLIFI said this data was collected from a hunger study
conducted in 2014, which is the best source they have on the
details of who is hungry in Alaska. About 619 Alaskans were
surveyed and 77 program visits were done by 194 Food Bank of
Alaska partner agencies in every borough of the state. She said
this study really helped them understand who is hungry and that
1 in 5 Alaskans seek food assistance very year. The Food Bank
serves 155,000 Alaskans annually including repeat clients; 23
percent of those households include at least one veteran and 3
percent are currently serving in the military.
MS. KHLIFI said many hungry people are part of the "working
poor:" 60 percent have worked for pay in the last 12 months. Of
those not working, 21 percent are retired and 9 percent cannot
work due to disability (the slide saying 69 percent was wrong
she noted).
She said food banks want in the long run to work themselves out
of the job. But now they are realizing they used to be emergency
food providers but frequently they are chronic food providers.
People are continuously coming to them. Hunger and poverty often
go hand in hand: 53 percent of their clients served have incomes
that are at or below the federal poverty level ($15,510 or less
for a household of two).
4:56:58 PM
MS. KHLIFI said hunger impacts public health. There is a big
correlation between obesity and hunger, which seems
contradictory; about 26 percent of households have at least one
member with diabetes in the houses they surveyed. The rising
costs in health care often create hardship and sometimes people
have to make tough choices between paying their medical bills
and putting food on the table. Alaskans have tough choices due
to the rising cost of housing, transportation costs, utilities,
and medical care. Food comes last and that is where a lot of
emergency food providers come in. Eventually they hope Alaskans
don't have to make that choice.
4:58:00 PM
Families in need adopt coping strategies, such as eating cheap,
processed, unhealthy foods that are not Alaska grown and past
the expiration date (81 percent), purchasing food in dented or
damaged packages (57 percent), and receiving help from family or
friends (54 percent).
The Food Bank of Alaska served 6.8 million pounds of food in
FY15, she said. As the charitable end of the hunger system, they
look to federal, state, and community funds for help.
4:59:33 PM
MS. KHLIFI said that 19.5 percent of the agencies in their
network are meal programs, and about 80.5 percent are shopping
programs; many are faith based and about 64 percent of them have
staff. The rest are mostly volunteer-run. She added that about
61 percent of the food comes from donations from farmers,
fishermen, and food retailers; 26 percent comes from federal
commodity foods; 13 percent is actually purchased with grants.
Some of the food assistance programs that help serve Alaska's
hungry are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),
the Women Infants and Children Program (WIC), the free
introduced school lunch or breakfast program (NSLP), the Child
Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), and the Expanded Nutrition
Education Program (ENEP). About 50 percent of all school
children in Alaska qualify for free or reduced price meals;
115,000 children are enrolled. A lot of rural communities depend
on the National School Lunch Program to get meals to their kids.
One gap is in the summer and that's why the Food Bank of Alaska
administers the Summer Food Service Program.
She said the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
(FDPIR) is administered by the Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium and has 19 distribution agencies in rural Alaska. She
explained that it is a little more complex, because a lot of
those communities can't also qualify for food stamps if they are
receive FDPIR; some villages have clients and folks that cannot
receive food stamps, so they are supplemented in other ways.
5:02:19 PM
MS. KHLIFI noted the chart labeled "Cycle of Food Insecurity and
Chronic Disease: Diabetes" and explained that they try to give
the best food they can afford to their clients to make sure they
aren't making the situation worse. A lot of times folks come to
food banks or emergency food providers because they are faced
with medical bills and can't access the food they need for
optimal health. A lot of times that results in diabetes and
obesity and things like that. Again, lack of access to healthy,
affordable foods creates this problem, as well as a lack of
transportation to grocery stores that have affordable foods for
them can all result in not being able to provide for their
families.
She presented a chart of how food insecurity can lead to
increased health care expenditures and limited dietary options
which leads to obesity, hypertension and diabetes, which
perpetuates the cycle of food insecurity. Another chart graphed
the correlation between food insecurity and overweight and obese
Alaskans. This data was collected from the Behavioral Risk
Factor Surveillance System in 2013. She noted a large
correlation between those who are suffering chronic diseases as
a result of food insecurity and those who are considered food
secure. About 34 percent are obese which presents them with the
problem of why so many Alaskans are obese when they are also
hungry.
5:04:25 PM
Consumption of fruits and vegetables and sugary drinks by secure
and food insecure people as well as socio-economic categories of
school children were on other graphs. Education is not the whole
issue, she said. People want to access fresh and local foods,
but it is expensive. Not being able to afford to buy Alaska
grown food results in things like consuming less fruits and
vegetables and supplementing that with cheap calories. The UAF
Cooperative Extension Service Nutrition Education Program is
crucially important for people to understand where to maximize
their food dollars and eat healthfully on a budget, but it's not
doing the full job.
Why is this important to this hearing and to future legislation?
Ms. Khlifi said they, as emergency food providers, want to work
themselves out of a job by working collectively with other
sectors of the food system to build food security, especially
for those who don't currently have resources. They also want to
shed light on some misconceptions about who is hungry. A lot of
people use emergency food if they live paycheck to paycheck and
want to continue paying for their house and car for
transportation to their jobs.
MS. KHLIFI closed saying they don't think charity will end
hunger in Alaska and want to create some cross sector policies
and solutions to making sure that Alaskans have consistent
access to healthy food.
5:07:24 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted that Representative Spohnholz was in
attendance and invited Ms. Sill to give her presentation.
FOOD SECURITY AND WILD RESOURCE HARVESTS IN ALASKA
5:08:12 PM
LAUREN SILL, Subsistence Resource Specialist, Division of
Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Juneau,
Alaska, said they are a small resource division composed
primarily of anthropologists and other social scientists. The
division's mission is to research the customary and traditional
uses of wild resources by Alaska residents and provide this
information to the Board of Fisheries and Game.
MS. SILL said she was asked to focus on food security of those
residents who are especially dependent on subsistence resources.
She clarified that she would talk about food security, and in
this case it is defined as access by all people at all times to
enough food for an active healthy life. In addition, she would
discuss the harvest and use of wild foods regardless of the
regulations under which they were harvested.
5:09:21 PM
She said Alaskans harvest a diverse array of resources for home
use totaling approximately 50 million pounds of wild foods each
year. In 2012, rural residents harvested almost 37 million
pounds of wild food. This harvest consisted of a majority of
fish (salmon, halibut, white fish, and such) followed by large
land mammals such as deer, caribou, or moose. The harvest was
rounded out by marine mammals, shellfish, wild plants, and birds
and eggs. In 2012, urban residents harvested just over 13
million pounds of wild foods of similar composition in that it
was dominated by fish and land mammals.
These 50 million pounds of wild foods are harvested under a
variety of regulatory systems, not just subsistence regulations.
For example, the harvest of salmon for home use by urban
residents reveals that three main sources comprise the harvest:
personal use fisheries, sport fisheries, and subsistence
fisheries. The majority of harvest by rural residents are
subsistence fisheries, but sport, personal use, and commercial
fisheries all provide important sources of salmon for some
communities.
SENATOR STOLTZE asked what percentage sport, personal use,
subsistence, and commercial fisheries is of all salmon
harvested.
MS. SILL said she didn't have that number, but would get it for
him.
5:11:15 PM
Slide 4 graphed per capita harvest of all wild foods harvested
for home use by region. It was calculated by dividing the total
harvest by the population for a region. There are regional
patterns and in general there is a lower per capita harvest by
urban residents than rural. The average urban harvest is 22
pounds per person per year while the average rural harvest is
295 pounds per person per year. Within the rural regions there
are differences in per capita harvest, as well, with the highest
harvests observed in Arctic communities with an average of 438
pounds per person. Wild foods are nutritionally significant in
Alaskan diets (slide 5 graphed it per region).
5:12:26 PM
MS. SILL said wild foods fulfill a substantial portion of the
nutritional requirements for rural residents as well as urban.
For urban areas, wild foods contribute approximately 15 percent
of residents' daily protein needs while in rural areas, wild
foods contribute anywhere from 100 percent to more than 250
percent. The contribution to caloric requirements is smaller,
but still significant ranging from 2 percent in urban areas to
nearly 40 percent in the western and Arctic regions.
MS. SILL stated that the contribution of wild foods to the
nutritional needs of Alaskans is unique. It cannot be replaced
by store bought foods. Slide 6 graphed the percentage daily
value of protein in the top graph and the fats in the bottom
graph found in one serving of a variety of foods. A serving of
the wild foods (caribou and salmon) have greater amounts of
protein than store bought foods such as beef/pot roast or hot
dogs. The lower graph shows that a serving of ground beef
contains greater amounts of both overall fats and saturated fats
than a serving of sockeye salmon. She noted that while ground
beef is high in these fats, it significantly lacks the healthy
fats (omega 3 fatty acids) that are abundant in salmon and other
wild food. Beyond meat examples, there is still a difference in
the nutrition of store bought and wild foods. For example, a
serving of wild berries has two to four times the anti-oxidants
found in store bought berries.
The nutrition value of wild foods is clear, Ms. Sill said, but
they also have economic value. If communities didn't have access
to wild foods, what would it cost to replace those 50 million
pounds with store bought foods? Wild subsistence foods don't
circulate in markets, so it's difficult to place a monetary
value on them, but they know the average cost of replacement
foods like ground beef or salmon.
5:14:30 PM
For slide 7 they took the amount of wild foods harvested and
applied a range of per pound cost to the harvests. For urban
areas, based on data summarized by the Alaska Department of
Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD), they used a range of
$5-8 per pound for replacement foods, which leads to an overall
value of nearly $100 million. In rural areas where store foods
generally cost more, they used a range of $10-15 per pound for a
total of nearly $475 million. Replacing the 50 million pounds of
wild foods harvested by Alaska residents with store bought food
would cost something like a half billion dollars. This is just
the monetary value; it doesn't address the cultural value of
harvesting wild foods.
MS. SILL pointed out that harvesting wild foods is a central
activity in many Alaska communities. It's pursued using small-
scale, efficient technologies with the aim of meeting the needs
of families in small communities. It is not intended for profit.
Subsistence is considered a part of a community's mixed economy.
Subsistence activities are supported through wage activity. Cash
income is needed to buy equipment, the supplies and gas
necessary for subsistence harvesting.
The relationship between income and subsistence production is
complex and varied. In general, one sees that the high producing
households in a community usually have a stable cash income that
can be used for subsistence activities. The harvest from these
households provide for cash poor households who can't fish or
hunt, such as elders, the disabled, or single parents of young
children. They documented through social network analysis that
sharing of subsistence resources is a central characteristic of
subsistence communities. Subsistence activities contribute to
sustainable and resilient communities where activities are
organized around family groups for harvesting, processing, and
sharing both of labor and of harvests. High levels of sharing
among and between communities reinforce relationships. The acts
of harvesting and processing and sharing transmit values and
skills to younger generations.
5:16:16 PM
In addition to the work the division does in assessing food
security through collecting knowledge and information on harvest
and use practices across the state, Ms. Sill said, it also
administers a modified version of the US Department of
Agriculture's Food Security Module (Slide 10), producing
comparable results to the national and state food security
scores produced yearly by the USDA.
Because of the importance of subsistence to community food
security and with help from the USDA, she said they have
modified their module to include questions on store-bought and
wild foods and questions to assess the seasonality of a
household's food security. Respondents of their surveys are
asked a short series of questions about their household's food
security, and based upon their responses, households are
designated as having high, marginal, low, or very low food
security (slide 11). They did not make assumptions or claims for
small communities due to the sample sizes involved, but they
make regional comparisons that can provide insight into patterns
and trends.
During the household surveys they conduct in a community, after
asking about the harvest and use of a resource category, Ms.
Sill said they ask if the household used less, the same, or
more, of that resource category and whether or not the household
got enough. Getting enough of a resource to fulfill a
household's requirements may depend on such factors as the
amount of other food sources, like wild resources, store-bought
foods, or garden-grown foods, and they also depend on the
household's size, their nutritional needs, food preferences, and
many other factors.
5:18:58 PM
Twenty-two communities were used for the 2014 study year and the
graph on slide 12 showed that 26 percent of the households that
responded didn't get enough salmon; 57 percent of households did
and 17 percent of households don't usually use salmon. Whether
or not a household got enough other resource, the household may
still have used less or more of that resource. There are a
variety of reasons that a household might report using less:
resources was less available that year, a lack of effort, less
sharing, the household was too busy working or couldn't find the
time to hunt or fish, or because of family/personal reasons
(health and new babies).
5:20:33 PM
In conclusion, Ms. Sill said, subsistence harvests are an
important component of food security of Alaskans. A wild
diversity of resources are harvested throughout the state for
home use and the sources of harvest are varied. Fisheries and
hunts considered subsistence are not the only important sources
of wild foods for most households. Subsistence harvest and
consumption of wild foods is part of the overall fabric of life
in many communities and can't be adequately replaced through
store-bought foods. The nutritional value and cultural
importance are not fulfilled through store replacements.
While Alaska overall has higher food security than the national
as a whole, there are regional and seasonal variations seen
throughout the state. Subsistence activities play an important
role in the food security of communities statewide. While there
are some factors such as the cost of heating during winter
months which clearly contribute to these variations and trends,
there is no simple correlation that can predict how food secure
a community is.
MS. SILL said the division has more information including an
online database of community level harvests or wild resources
that contains every community in every year there have been
surveys. This is called the Community Subsistence Information
System and can be found on the ADF&G website. Another database
found there is of all the technical papers and reports they have
produced on the surveys and ethnographic work conducted in over
250 communities. They have also produced a four-page document
entitled "Subsistence in Alaska: A Year 2012 Update," which can
be found on the Division of Subsistence home page.
5:21:35 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE asked her to take a few items back to the
commissioner and the governor on food security. Thirty-six
Alaskan households have personal use salmon permits on the Kenai
and Kasilof Rivers. Nearly 13,000 Alaskan households have
permits to access the Copper River fishery, known as Chitina.
And the Matanuska Susitna Borough, now the second largest
borough in the state of Alaska, has an Alaska Native population
in excess of 10 percent, which is about 10-11,000 Alaska Natives
with a subsistence and personal use oriented nutritional
background. He wanted to make sure that the commissioner and
governor get this information on resource issues in case they
are not watching it now.
5:22:21 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that looking at the Alaska and
especially the US average on slide 11, except for Port Graham
that is below the US average, the rest in Alaska have a
relatively high level of food security.
MS. SILL responded that these are just a few of the communities
where they have done these surveys. They only started the food
security question in 2013, so they haven't been administered to
a lot of communities. The data is just from the year 2014 and it
varies pretty significantly.
SENATOR MICCICHE said the data indicates that 88 percent of
Alaska folks live in high or marginal food security status and
the US average is 86 percent.
MS. SILL said that was true.
FOOD SECURITY IN ALASKA
5:23:48 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the next speaker, Ken Meter, who co-
wrote a report on food security in Alaska and would provide an
executive summary.
KEN METER, President, Crossroads Resource Center, Minneapolis,
MN, said he works in about 40 states around the US doing studies
of local food economies and helping various states and regions
address issues of food security and access.
5:25:51 PM
MR. METER said he found that Alaska spends $1.9 billion per year
buying food that is sourced outside of the state. So, it's a
really an economic leakage that is comparable to what some of
the budget shortfalls the state is facing. It's a little bit
more of a quiet crisis, but it is equally important in the sense
that Alaska is especially challenged both by climate and
changing weather conditions, and the fact that Alaska is further
from some of the food sources than most of the Lower 48 is. That
gives Alaska special vulnerability in looking at food. Living in
Minnesota he shares that vulnerability, because a lot of the
produce he eats comes from California and Mexico. This is a
condition he sees happening in most of the states of the
country. So, the economic shortfalls that he tracked are not
unique to Alaska.
He has done studies of the Minnesota food system and found that
they import at least 90 percent of the food they eat. South
Carolina, a state that has four growing seasons, was still
importing 95 percent of what the people actually eat. He assumes
that Alaska is in a very similar place, but Alaska clearly has
less farm land, less growing season, fewer people who know
farming, and fewer farms. To him this is a big concern for the
future of the state given that oil prices are low now, but they
may rebound making it more expensive to import food from Mexico
or California. He believes importing food into Alaska will
become increasingly difficult over the next few years.
MR. METER said he also found that Alaska has some very solid
strengths to work from. In the 1980's he visited Alaska and at
that time there was a stronger agriculture tradition - dairy
farming, milk processing, and some of the other industries -
Alaska had counted on and in the last few years there has been a
real emergence of farmers selling direct to household consumers,
which to him, reflects the idea that people who live in Alaska
that really want to reach out to connect with the farmer really
realize some of the vulnerabilities they have and want to find
some ways of assuring themselves of having better access to
food. It turns out that 32 percent of Alaska farmers sell direct
to a household consumer, a rate equally high in states like
Vermont and New Hampshire, which have been devoted to local food
sales for about 40 years. It is surprising to find that Alaska
is actually one of the overachieving states in the country in
terms of how farmers are connecting with household consumers.
SENATOR STOLTZE remarked that in 2011 President Obama signed the
Food Safety Modernization Act (FMSA) that put a pretty big
administrative and regulatory barrier that some direct sellers
are talking about and asked Mr. Meter if he found that a
challenge in the other markets he has talked about.
MR. METER replied that there has been quite a bit of concern all
over the country, more than for real health issues, so far. His
sense is that some of the outbreaks that have occurred have been
traced in many cases to larger farms, and in many cases the
specific practices in the field were not up to standards. Also,
the FMSA offers exemptions to some very small farms selling
direct to households on the understanding that if you are
selling direct, the consumer has some ability to visit the farm
or to know the practices of a farmer. Also the risks are
inherently less, simply because the sales are smaller.
Many farms are saying the new safety requirements are going to
make them less interested in growing food. Many aging farmers
say that they will simply get out of farming rather than submit
to increased regulation. The younger farmers are reporting that
the costs of getting certification or getting safety training
are often prohibitive because their sales are fairly small in
the first place. He also sees a nationwide effort for extension
agencies to train farmers in good agriculture practices.
5:32:42 PM
In many states most of the farmers are primarily producing
commodities for export, but not in Alaska Mr. Meter said.
Something like 20 percent of the food that farmers sell for
human consumption in the state is sold directly. So, these
direct sales are not only big nationally but also very important
sources for the farmers who sell directly even though at this
point it is a relatively small flow of money. It gives the state
a very solid foundation from which to build up step-by-step more
farms, more winter green houses, more efforts to extend the
season, and in some cases for Alaskans to adapt their diets more
closely to what farms in the state can actually produce.
As the previous speaker mentioned, Mr. Meter said, the
subsistence harvesting and personal use harvesting has a
tremendous economic as well as cultural import. The story that
most moved him about subsistence gathering was the sense that in
some villages a person who has been a strong subsistence hunter
has either retired or decided to opt out of that, and what
happens in some of those cases is the family loses the ability
to speak the language - often because the family doesn't work
together if they aren't subsistence gathering as they would have
done with that option. The terms they use while gathering food
are very special and important to the culture. Sometimes when
those practices fall apart, the very culture itself is
threatened.
5:34:49 PM
MR. METER said another strength of Alaska in some ways is the
distance from the Lower 48. In the 50s some people decided to
produce more food in the Matanuska Valley and some other areas,
because the distance created some reason to be careful and to
produce food at home because it's harder to bring it in from far
away. In the Lower 48 he has found that many of the more remote
places are the most creative about learning how to work together
as a community to grow food, to process food, to trade it within
the community, and to make better provisions for themselves to
really have the skills and the capacities to raise food for
themselves over the long term.
His overall conclusion of the study would be that there is a
significant financial leakage from the state just like other
states of the country, but Alaska has a peculiar vulnerability
that is both a threat and an opportunity. If Alaska wants to
have a resilient lifestyle in 10 or 20 years, given the
uncertainty about oil and the uncertainty about how much people
can continue to use fossil fuels given the climate change,
planning should start now to make sure that as much food as
possible can be grown on Alaskan farms, in greenhouses or other
indoor facilities in the state to really make sure that is a
solid economically.
Also, Mr. Meter said in the 1950s it was possible to import
someone from Wisconsin who knew how to farm and now many fewer
people know those skills. So, the report recommended starting at
the school level to make sure that every high school graduate
has basic skills in how to produce and cook food and eat
carefully and build a healthy lifestyle for themselves. It also
involves making sure the farm land is available, critically
important in Alaska since some of the best farm land in the
state has been taken by suburban expansion. This will require
infrastructure investments for food storage, to store it safely
and close to where people live in the wintertime. "We're going
to need to keep I think a culture of producing food and
harvesting food alive in the state." Marketing and professional
training for people to really keep the system vibrant will be
needed.
SENATOR STOLTZE thanked him for his presentation and said with
less than 600 acres of spud production, Alaska can only go up.
It has capacity to do that, but the local market needs to be
developed, and that is where the most assistance is needed.
5:40:10 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE related a personal story about friends who
named their potato farm "Outfit" and bought the surrounding
homestead and ended up doing quite well. But they had a
guaranteed market and a guaranteed contract. A very important
part of it is developing outlets and he hoped they could move in
that direction.
He also had a question about what percentage of food Alaskans
purchase that is brought from outside, because from the earlier
presentation he thinks a lot slips by in the evaluation of how
much is grown locally. He assumed that of the 95 percent of the
$2 billion that is imported that the percentage grown and
harvested in Alaska is much higher than 5 percent.
MR. METER said these are "very rough estimates," and that it is
costly to make an accurate account of those imports. The numbers
they have are close enough to work with to have a pretty good
overall sense at a gross level of what is going on, but if he
says 95 percent of the food is imported that doesn't mean that
he thinks 5 percent has been produced inside the state. The one
clear number they have and one of the reasons he spoke about
direct sales is that the US Bureau of Agriculture does ask
farmers to talk about how much food they sell to household
consumers. He recalled that was about $20 million. There had
historically been a strong cattle industry that is also much
weaker than it was just because of the economics of raising food
and the relative ease of bringing it in from outside. Right now
it looks like .3 or .4 percent of the food that farmers produce
is sold directly to household customers, but he didn't have a
firm number.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he didn't think the leakage was on
imports, but on local farming and livestock production.
5:44:52 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL said this discussion reminded her of Creamer's
Dairy that used to deliver milk in glass bottles to her doorstep
in Fairbanks. She thanked everyone for their presentations and
Ms. Vanwyan, who organized this hearing on food security in
Alaska.
5:45:42 PM
Finding no further business, Chair Giessel adjourned the Senate
Resources Standing Committee meeting at 5:45 p.m.