Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/25/2017 04:00 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio
and video
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB177 | |
| HB74HOUSE BILL NO. 74 | |
| Public Testimony | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 177
"An Act relating to the response to, and control of,
aquatic invasive species; establishing the aquatic
invasive species response fund; and relating to the
provision of information about aquatic invasive
species to users of the Alaska marine highway system."
4:05:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, SPONSOR, introduced the bill.
She shared the bill would create an infrastructure for
rapid response to an aquatic invasive species outbreak,
would create a fund for invasive species response, directed
the Alaska Marine Highway to provide information to
passengers bringing boats to Alaska, and directed the
Department of Motor Vehicles to provide information to
Alaskans when they registered their boats. She provided a
document titled Appendix G that included various examples
of invasive species (copy on file). The first example was
didemnum vexillum (d-vex). The second example was elodea -
a western waterweed. The third slide pictured Reed
canarygrass, and Northern Pike and the Norway rat were the
fourth and fifth examples. One of the reasons for the
discussion was related to the cost associated with the
outbreaks. She provided examples from the Capital Budgets
passed in FY13 and FY14, which each contained
appropriations used to address invasive species outbreaks
in the state. She spoke to the two provisions of the bill
that pertained to communication surrounding invasive
species hitchhiking on boats and float planes. She pointed
to the bottom left hand cornet of the document titled,
"Help Stop the Spread of Aquatic Invasives!" (copy on
file), which illustrated watercraft checkpoints. She spoke
of a major project taking place in the Columbia River basin
for a type of invasive mussel, which was estimated to cost
hundreds of millions of dollars to address the problem.
4:12:34 PM
Representative Tarr continued to address the bill. She
relayed that her goal with the legislation was to be
preventative in nature and provide a bit of funding for the
issue. She relayed that the potential for the problem to
become expensive to the state was great. She suggested that
one way to raise funds for the issue was a $1 surcharge on
boat registration. She said that the fiscal note reflected
$5,000 for production of materials for distribution, which
could involve signage as well as brochures. She said that
any excess revenue could be used for future outbreaks. She
shared that the state of Montana had vehicle checkpoints
where boats were checked and properly cleaned for a fee.
She lamented that the international borders surrounding
Alaska limited the state's jurisdiction. She related that
state law required the registration of all motorized boats,
which could provide the opportunity to check vessels for
hitchhikers. She said that both the marine highway and the
DMV had the potential to assess fees, and the legislature
might think about allowing those entities to implement a
surcharge. She stressed that prevention and immediate
response was the low-cost alternative to a full-blown
invasion, which could impact salmon fisheries and other
recreational opportunities for Alaskans.
4:16:09 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted there were several people available
for questions.
Representative Thompson thought the bill should include the
northern region of the state as well. He relayed there were
areas of the Chena River that were experiencing problems
with Elodea.
Representative Tarr recalled that mechanical controls had
been attempted in the Chena River slough, but had been
unsuccessful. She agreed that the norther regions of the
state should be included in the conversation.
Representative Wilson directed the committee's attention to
Page 2, lines 1 through 4:
(b) In responding under (a) of this section to the
occurrence of an aquatic invasive species, the
department may apply for suspension of, or emergency,
quarantine, public health, crisis, or other exemptions
to, applicable environmental laws and regulations.
Representative Wilson asked where the public input could be
found under the sub-section.
Representative Tarr replied that the intent was that some
of the standard procedures would not apply in the
circumstances defined in the bill because of the need for
an immediate response. She stressed that not having the
infrastructure readily available could delay a response by
a year, which would make the problem worse. She added that
the language was intended to empower the departments to
side-step the typical public process in emergency
situations.
Representative Wilson shared that chemicals were being used
to fight invasive species in the North Pole area, which had
spurred concern for the shallow wells in the vicinity. She
requested information on what would qualify as an
emergency, and she voiced concern at the truncating of the
public process.
Representative Tarr replied that she would follow up on the
matter. She relayed that the bill highlighted the use of
the least toxic means possible as the number one priority.
She hopes that chemical controls could be used when
mechanical controls did not work, but that the default
would be to do the least harmful method first.
4:20:13 PM
Representative Wilson rebutted that least toxic in her
drinking water well was not sufficient.
Vice-Chair Gara referred to Page 2, lines 20 through 23:
(f) In responding under (a) of this section to the
occurrence of freshwater aquatic invasive species, the
department shall respond in a manner determined to
cause the least harm to noninvasive fish populations
that are used for recreational, personal use,
commercial, or subsistence purposes
Vice-Chair Gara related that he supported the least harmful
response possible. He said that chemicals could sometimes
do more harm than good when it came to human health. He
understood that the section could allow for a "no action"
alternative. He requested clarification from the Department
of Fish and Game.
Representative Tarr replied in the affirmative. She
elaborated if drinking water were involved, direct
application of an herbicide would not be applied.
HB 177 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB74_Support_042417.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2017 4:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB 74 - Document in Support Joint Armed Services transcript.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2017 4:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB 74 JBER Flier re base access. 4.25.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2017 4:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB 74Alaska-REAL-ID-finance-25APR2017.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2017 4:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB74_Amend_042517.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2017 4:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB74_Oppose_042517.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2017 4:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB74_Support_042517.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2017 4:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB177 Supporting Document - Article Peninsula Clarion 4.25.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2017 4:00:00 PM |
HB 177 |
| HB 177 Supporting Document.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2017 4:00:00 PM |
HB 177 |
| HB 74 Supporting Document Current Status of States Homeland Security.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2017 4:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB 74 Alaska S2S Verification Services Agreement.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2017 4:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB 74 H FIN follow up re AAMVA 4.25.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2017 4:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| CS HB 74 (STA) Summary of Changes.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2017 4:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |