Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
05/01/2017 01:30 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 | |
| Presentations: the Economy and Fiscal Policy Overview | |
| SB6 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | SB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 6(JUD)
"An Act relating to the regulation and production of
industrial hemp; relating to industrial hemp pilot
programs; providing that industrial hemp is not
included in the definition of 'marijuana'; and
clarifying that adding industrial hemp to food does
not create an adulterated food product."
3:55:00 PM
SENATOR SHELLEY HUGHES, SPONSOR, relayed that the preceding
year, former Senator Johnny Ellis had introduced a bill
about hemp. She recalled receiving a phone call from a
farmer who had been very interested in the bill. The bill
had been introduced at the tail end of the previous
session; therefore, she had committed to introducing a bill
in the current session. She noted that when she had
initially introduced the bill it had been quite short - it
had been simply to remove hemp from the marijuana
definition section in statute and place it under the
Division of Agriculture defined as an agricultural product.
The current bill was slightly different in order to be in
compliance with federal law. She was still confident that
the Division of Agriculture and individuals interested in
farming hemp were comfortable with the bill.
Senator Hughes relayed that she had worked on a number of
policies to help bring the state into the 21st century in
terms of technology and other. She remarked that the state
had basically gone silent on the topic for a number of
years and it was now going back to catch up. She continued
that in the 1600s, hemp had been a stable crop in the
United States. She elaborated that the sails of European
ships traveling to America had been made of hemp.
Additionally, some early drafts of the Declaration of
Independence had been drafted on hemp paper and covered
wagon canvas had been made of hemp. In 1937 the product had
been made illegal nationwide; therefore there had been
little usage until the product had been redefined at the
federal level by the 2014 Farm Bill [the Agricultural Act
of 2014]. She elaborated that 30 states had passed
legislation - there were 17 states that were conducting a
pilot act. There were tens of thousands of products that
could be made from hemp.
Senator Hughes continued that a meat plant in Palmer was
currently being privatized. She elaborated that hemp was a
nutritional forage for livestock - in order to make the
meat plant work, the farmers needed to grow their livestock
herds. Hemp grew easily in Alaska, it was nutritious, and
was good for the soils. She had heard from others
throughout the state interested in using the product. She
referred to a person interested in using hemp for building
insulation and another person using hemp to make soaps and
body products. She highlighted that the sponsor statement
in members' packets was printed on hemp paper.
Senator Hughes explained that SB 6 defined hemp as cannabis
with a THC content of 0.3 percent. She shared that 1
percent was the threshold of intoxication. When growers
were trying to produce marijuana they aimed for 20 to 30
percent THC. The bill would also define hemp as an
agricultural product and would remove it from controlled
substances statutes. She furthered that the bill would
create a pilot program, which was part of the federal
requirement, and would allow registrants to participate.
The Division of Agriculture would have the regulatory
authority and would create a fee structure to have the
program be self-sustaining. The bill also removed CBD oils.
She noted her staff and others were available to speak to
the bill. She remarked that her office had been working
with an attorney at Hemp Law LLC who had worked across
states and helped her office understand legal requirements
in terms of compliance with federal law. She thanked the
committee for its time and noted the next day was Alaska
Agriculture Day. She believed hemp was an economic
opportunity the state should promote.
4:02:11 PM
Representative Guttenberg was supportive of the bill, but
he had concern with the conflict between hemp and pot in
outdoor growing fields. He mentioned pollen as an issue. He
thought there needed to be an understanding about the two
crops. He wondered if the Division of Agriculture or the
bill sponsor had been approached about the issue.
Senator Hughes deferred to her staff for detail.
BUDDY WHITT, STAFF, SENATOR SHELLEY HUGHES, relayed that
the sponsor's office had been approached with the concern.
He directed attention to page 3, lines 4 through 7 of the
bill and explained that the provision had been added to
address the concern - it fell under the Division of
Agriculture's responsibility to adopt regulations related
to industrial hemp. The provision stated the division was
required to establish isolation distances for the
production of industrial hemp. The reason a specific
distance had not been identified was to give the division
the leniency to decide what the distance should be. The
sponsor's office had determined it would be better for the
division to establish the distance through regulation
rather than the legislature including a distance in statute
that may not be workable or ideal. He deferred to the
department for further detail.
4:04:48 PM
Representative Guttenberg stated it was his impression
there were a limited number of outdoor facilities and
farmers - most were located in controlled greenhouses. He
shared that he had been asked to visit a garden that had a
strain growing outside. He surmised the issue may not apply
to greenhouses or inside commercial growers.
ROB CARTER, AGRONOMIST, PLANT MATERIALS CENTER, DIVISION OF
AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via
teleconference), referred to isolation distances and
relayed they were a minimum separation required between two
or more varieties of the same species. The current
discussion pertained to cannabis sativa industrial hemp and
cannabis sativa recreational marijuana. The purpose of the
isolation distance was to keep seeds pure in the production
process. Additionally, in the case of recreational
marijuana, the purpose was to keep female crops from being
seed-free in order to have a viable product to sell. The
isolation distances were set for a multitude of other crops
(e.g. alfalfa, barley, oats, wheat, and other) that met the
federal certified seed standards; the distances were set in
accordance with documented global scientific research. He
spoke specifically to the bill and relayed that the
Division of Agriculture would conduct its due diligence to
ensure it had explored other opportunity from Colorado,
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Canada, and the European Union
(that had been growing industrial hemp for a significant
amount of time), to make sure the isolation distances were
set in order to prevent a hemp crop from impeding the
production of a recreational crop.
4:07:37 PM
Representative Guttenberg understood that Colorado was
considering 5 or 10 miles and he recognized the federal
government had probably done no research on the specific
topic. He asked about the parameters set by other
jurisdictions.
Mr. Carter answered that Colorado had started looking at
the aforementioned ideals [5 to 10 miles between two
similar species]. The Division of Agriculture looked at the
issue from the purity standards of setting seed tolerance
isolation distances. Colorado had established its
recommendation for its isolation distances required for
cannabis production. He detailed that it depended on the
type, which was unique to this crop. There were dioecious
and monoecious types and hybrids that were all female -
each one had a different isolation distance. The
recommended isolation distance in Colorado for the highest
quality and most pure was called the foundation or
registered seed, was 16,150 feet. He furthered that
distances were set regionally based on wind patterns
because cannabis sativa is highly wind pollinated and also
pollinated by insect. Isolation distances in Canada were
anywhere between 1 meter and 5,000 meters. He believed
there would need to be regional isolation distances for
Alaska and he believed there would need to be strong
communication with registered and recognized commercial
growers through the marijuana control board in order for
the division to identify where the outdoor recreational
cannabis was being produced in order to give everyone the
right to produce crops.
4:10:05 PM
Representative Grenn referred to fiscal note OMB Component
2204 that mentioned the division anticipated the
registration of possibly 25 farms in the first year. He
asked if regulations would prohibit someone from growing
recreational marijuana and industrial hemp.
Mr. Whitt answered there was no provision in the bill that
would preclude someone from growing both; however, it would
be highly risky for a person to do both in terms of
ensuring the viability of the commercial marijuana.
Representative Kawasaki asked when states started to
legalize the manufacturing and growing of hemp.
Senator Hughes answered that the law had been changed by
the federal Farm Bill in 2014. She deferred to her staff
for further detail.
Mr. Whitt replied there were a few of states that started
their process before federal law had allowed it. He could
not speak about each state, but he relayed that when the
cart was put before the horse, states were having to make
some changes to fit federal guidelines. He referenced the
2014 Farm Bill and a 2016 omnibus bill, which had allowed
transportation of industrial hemp across state lines. There
was also the USDA Statement of Principles [on Industrial
Hemp], which had been published in 2016 and specified how
the USDA would treat the product. There were a number of
states that had put the effort in prior to the release of
federal guidelines. He offered to follow up with more
detail on the timeline.
Representative Kawasaki relayed there had been six states
prior to 2006 that had passed laws including California.
The Industrial Hemp Act had passed in 2009. He asked why it
had taken Alaska so long to get to the point it was
considering industrial hemp farming. He believed Alaska
would be the 33rd or 34th state to take on the activity.
Senator Hughes responded that although some states began
early, there had been some colonies that started early -
she relayed that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and
John Adams had all grown hemp. She relayed that she would
probably have worked on the issue earlier if it had been
brought to her attention earlier.
4:14:27 PM
Representative Kawasaki recalled that as a former
councilperson, the council [Fairbanks City Council] had
introduced a resolution supporting industrial hemp around
2006. He supported the bill and thought it would be a boon
for the agricultural and scientific community in Alaska.
Representative Thompson relayed that he had tried to get
something similar to the bill going in 2011. He had spoken
with the University of Alaska Fairbanks Agriculture
Department. He provided further detail about the past
effort to do an experimental grow with the community's 24-
hours of sunlight to see how the product would do in
Northern Alaska. The goal had also been to check the oil
and fiber content. The effort had ceased because it had not
been possible to obtain the seeds at that time. He was glad
to see the bill and believed hemp was a possible cash crop
that could be an economic boon for Alaska.
CSSB 6(JUD) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster addressed the agenda for the following day.