Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 124
01/24/2007 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB87 | |
| HB25 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 87 - CITIZEN ADVISORY COMM ON FEDERAL AREAS 1:03:24 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 87, "An Act reestablishing the Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Management Areas in Alaska; and providing for an effective date." 1:03:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 87, explained he would like to reestablish the Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas (CACFA) because it "served us well when it was in place." He pointed out that in the past when people had problems with [federal government land managers], CACFA was an effective way for people to communicate with the state and get help when appropriate. Representative Kelly expressed concern that currently citizens must go directly through an appeal or a "fix the squawks process" that is strictly on the federal side and it does not work very well. 1:05:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG requested examples, both good and bad, of how CACFA worked previously. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY provided an example of trappers north of the Yukon who must deal with different federal refuge managers and management styles - from a style of "let them do what they've been doing for a hundred years" to a micro-management style of "this is where you can park your truck and nowhere else." The commission would be a way for citizens to come before a body to speak about the problems they are having. He pointed out that legislators are not part of any official panel that can actually have some affect. 1:07:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to why [CACFA] was disbanded. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said that Governor Knowles defunded CACFA. He expressed his belief that federal managers currently have an advantage over Alaska's citizens and that this is not what he heard in the promises made as part of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). 1:08:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired as to how local fish and game advisory committees interacted with the previous [CACFA] and whether they would integrate their activities [if CACFA was reestablished]. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that this is mostly about what the [federal government] does with regard to the management of [federal] conservation units. He then deferred to his staff for further response. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether [CACFA] would interact with, or replace, or consider action related to the new federal subsistence regulations. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY explained that, just like the advisory boards and the game boards, CACFA would interact with and have access to the federal advisory boards as part of the commission's ability to work with and problem solve. In further response to Representative Seaton, Representative Kelly affirmed that this would be the case depending upon the particular [conservation] unit. For instance, if someone complained about a difficulty he/she was having, CACFA would be able to try resolving the difficulty, regardless of whether [federal or state managers] control that particular area. 1:10:19 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO, referring to the list of previous commission members in CACFA's 1997 Annual Report, inquired as to whether there is a connection between those names and recommendations for new commission members. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded, no. Although some of the former members of CACFA might be good candidates, those names merely represent the folks who used to be on the commission. He stressed that there was no attempt in the bill to influence the commission's make-up. 1:11:36 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO pointed out that the fiscal note for HB 87 is indeterminate. He then related his assumption that commission members would only receive $400 a day per diem and $400 a day during travel, plus travel expenses, but no salaries or retirement. 1:11:55 PM SUE STANCLIFF, Staff to Representative Mike Kelly, Alaska State Legislature, confirmed that the commission members are subject to the per diem and travel reimbursements, but not to the Alaska Public Employees' Retirement System or Teachers' Retirement System. 1:12:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted his support of the requirement that commission members be representative of the diversity of users and uses on federal land in the state. However, previous commission members were primarily urban. Therefore, he asked how the diversity requirement was defined for the original members of CACFA. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY declined to comment because he did not know most of the previous members. He noted it would be up to the governor and the legislature to ensure the members reflect the appropriate users and uses. 1:14:18 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO directed attention to the language on page 2, line 13, subsection (e), that says: "who are not members of the legislature." Since three of the commissioners listed in CACFA's 1997 Annual Report were past members of the legislature, he inquired as to why it was desirable to allow former legislators to be commission members but not currently serving legislators. 1:15:47 PM MS. STANCLIFF clarified that current legislators are appointed to the commission as specified on page 2, lines 3-8, subsections (d) and (e): "The speaker of the house will appoint two members from the house..." and "The president of the senate shall appoint two members from the membership of the state senate...." MS. STANCLIFF then presented the history of the original CACFA by paraphrasing from the following written remarks [original punctuation provided]: The Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas was established in 1981 by the Alaska State Legislature to provide assistance to the citizens of Alaska who are affected by the management of federal lands within the state. The Commission was repealed in 1998 after Governor Knowles removed funding even-though the legislature approved the sunset extension to 2003. MS. STANCLIFF pointed out that HB 87 is different than the legislation creating the original CACFA in that it removes the sunset and takes the notion away that CACFA is a temporary commission. Because the issues that CACFA will be addressing will be ongoing for decades to come, HB 87 establishes CACFA as a permanent commission. MS. STANCLIFF then continued with the original CACFA's history by paraphrasing from the following written remarks [original punctuation provided]: The need for the Commission arose primarily from the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in 1980. The changes in land status which resulted from the creation and expansion of conservation system units increased the potential for conflict between Alaskans' traditional uses of these federal lands and the mandates in ANILCA. The commission is charged with the responsibility of researching issues and determining the impact of federal statutes, regulations and management decisions on the citizens of Alaska in order to minimize or resolve potential conflicts. The commission had been effective in assuring that land management decisions are consistent with both statutory language and Congressional intent, and in protecting the interests of Alaska's citizens. It was the intent of the Twelfth Legislature that the commissioners should be Alaskans directly affected and impacted by the establishment, operation and management of federal land in Alaska. To achieve this objective it was believed that the commissioners of the Citizens' Advisory Commission should not be state officials such as commissioners or the departments' top staff. Further intent stated that the Governor, Speaker of the House and President of the Senate appoint non-governmental related persons to the maximum extent possible. 1:19:37 PM MS. STANCLIFF noted that CACFA was originally established in Title 41 and upon review she determined that is where the CACFA provisions should be placed since Title 41 deals with public resources. Ms. Stancliff then called attention to the CACFA 1997 Annual Report being referenced by committee members. She noted it was included in the committee's information packet to provide an idea of what [CACFA] did and the decisions the commission made. 1:20:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES inquired as to what issues led to the belief that CACFA needed to be reinstated. MS. STANCLIFF explained that, in [Representative Kelly's] office alone, several people have called with issues regarding mining, trapping, fishing, hunting, and recreating. In fact, because of the level of harassment from federal officials, people have left their trap lines or removed themselves from the area. One case was taken to court and won, but it still did not deter [federal officials]. She informed the committee of a case involving a mining claim in the 40 Mile area where an R.S. 2477 crosses a wild and scenic river corridor, yet no access is provided across the river. Ms. Stancliff reiterated the need for there to be "someone who could advocate for the public" because state legislative offices do not have the expertise to intercede in cases involving federal laws. 1:22:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if there would be a way to provide balance so that both rural and urban people were on the commission. MS. STANCLIFF pointed out that the qualifications section of the statute requires a diversity of users and the diversity of the users are statewide. In further response to Representative Wilson, Ms. Stancliff highlighted that the previous members of CACFA from Fairbanks were probably like Representative Kelly who hunts and fishes in the northern areas of Alaska such as the Nowitna Refuge. Therefore, although such members reside in Fairbanks, they would have been representative of the northern portion of the state. 1:24:41 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO questioned whether it is legal for HB 87 to make reference to statutes that had been repealed. MS. STANCLIFF emphasized that that is why the bill's title says "reestablish" and assured the committee that [Legislative Legal Services] had been consulted and reference to repealed statutes is fine. 1:26:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON advised that dealing with the renewal of commissions is the legislature's way of making sure the commissions are being effective. He then asked if there is any listing of commissions with no sunset dates or is CACFA going to be unique. MS. STANCLIFF responded that she did not know of any other commissions or boards without sunset dates. However, she opined that there will forever be conflicts in Alaska between state land holders and federal lands. Furthermore, the 2009 date for land exchanges makes this all the more critical. This legislation would provide the public with a place to go, an ombudsman for the public. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that he views sunset dates as a way for the legislature to ensure a commission's effectiveness and make any needed changes. He indicated that he is more comfortable with sunset dates. 1:29:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON observed that HB 87's fiscal note analysis says the "commission was housed in the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from FY 1987 through FY 1999," but that page 1 of the bill, line 8, subsection (b) says "The commission is an advisory agency of the executive branch of the state but is not allocated to a principal department...." He asked if this is consistent with the previous CACFA. MS. STANCLIFF affirmed that it is consistent. She related her understanding was that the previous commission was under the governor's office and then moved to the physical location of the Department of Natural Resources' office in Fairbanks. 1:30:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON referred to the various requirements for commission appointments, member qualifications, and terms of members outlined on page 2, lines 2-21. He expressed concern that HB 87's current structure is a hodgepodge of appointments that creates a lot of coming and going. Since continuity on boards is important, he asked if the sponsor could tighten up the commission's composition, while still representing the diversity it was intended to represent. MS. STANCLIFF noted that the language [to reestablish CACFA] was taken as it was written when CACFA was repealed. Appointments of members of the legislature are not overlapping, they are only a four-year term. Diversity would be ensured through appointments made by the governor and the legislature. Ms. Stancliff disagreed with the characterization that the CACFA membership was a "hodgepodge," stating it was through careful consideration that a legislator not serve for longer than he/she is in office and not have an undue impact on the commission. 1:33:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said he did not disagree with Ms. Stancliff, but pointed out the list of previous commission members had no one from Southwest Alaska which is one of the larger impacted areas. CO-CHAIR GATTO noted his agreement with Representative Edgmon that previous commission members did not appear to represent a cross-section of the state. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that page 1, line 14, subsection (b) specifies that CACFA "shall represent each judicial district". However, she pointed out that some of those districts are fairly large. 1:35:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES directed attention to page 4, line 6, regarding lawsuit. He asked if reestablishing CACFA could push the burden on the state to file suit on behalf of an individual who was dissatisfied with results obtained by the commission. In other words, does it put the state in the position of being sued by the individual, or does it become the state's responsibility to handle on behalf of the citizens of Alaska. MS. STANCLIFF emphasized that the commission has the authority to bring a lawsuit to the attorney general (AG) because the constitution requires the state to protect and defend its citizens. The authority to sue is granted because otherwise there is no real ability to stand up for the citizens. REPRESENTATIVE ROSES clarified that his question is whether total responsibility is put on the state to file suit on behalf of a disenfranchised individual. He further asked if the state is put in a position of being sued by the disenfranchised individual because the state refused to file the suit. MS. STANCLIFF deferred to Ms. Cunning. 1:37:15 PM TINA CUNNING, Special Assistant, State/Federal Issues, Office of the Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, recalled that there was only one case actually taken up by the AG into the federal court system on behalf of the citizens of Alaska. That case was in regard to cabin regulations adopted by the National Park Service. For a case to be carried by the state on behalf of citizens, it would have to meet the criteria of Alaska's Department of Law and attorney general. "So, no," she advised, "The full burden of representing citizens would not fall to the state." 1:38:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked Ms. Cunning whether she knew of any instances in which individuals bringing cases before the commission were dissatisfied with the results and they then filed a lawsuit against the state claiming inadequate representation. MS. CUNNING replied no. The commission was very successful in working cooperatively to resolve issues on behalf of the citizens, she opined. 1:38:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG recalled that the previous commission held hearings in affected communities. He inquired as to how responsive the commission was to the issues raised in those hearings. MS. CUNNING commented that while the hearings were held by the commission, the real work was done by the executive director and the executive director's staff. Having become experts in federal law and policies, it was the staff who advised the public on how to seek resolution for themselves or the staff worked directly with the federal agency on the citizens' behalf to resolve the issue. Ms. Cunning recalled that only one particular issue did not reach a positive solution. 1:41:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG continued regarding the commission's responsiveness to the wishes of affected local communities. He specifically referred to the commission's endorsement of a proposal for private construction of a railroad and general access into the northern portion of Denali National Park despite the long time, and nearly unanimous, opposition from members of the nearby community whom he represents. MS. CUNNING stated she could not provide a gauge on issues such as the northern access route because the Alaska Department of Fish & Game's involvement is limited to its responsibilities. However, she did note that in the last years of CACFA, it was poorly funded and thus she was not certain how able it was to conduct hearings in local areas. 1:43:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) envisioned the interaction, or the overlapping authority, of this commission with the federal subsistence advisory board. MS. CUNNING noted that there was a five-year overlap between establishment of federal subsistence advisory boards and defunding of the [previous] commission. During that overlap, the focus of CACFA and its executive director was primarily on federal land management, not the allocation of fish and wildlife on those lands. 1:45:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern that the new commission's focus could be totally dependent on who is the executive director or on the commission members' ideas. With federal subsistence regulations being so contentious, he said he feared that CACFA could actually become a competing state agency to the local fish and game advisory board process or the federal subsistence board process. 1:46:52 PM DEL ACKELS, speaking as a former member of CACFA, informed the committee he had served on the commission over a fifteen-year period through four governors. He stated that the commission's main goal was the ANILCA process that radically altered what the state could do on federal lands. He pointed out that it was the [commission] who filed the navigability lawsuit against the [federal government], resulting in the State of Alaska receiving ownership of riverbeds. MR. ACKELS opined that there would not be an overlap with subsistence issues. He pointed out that the previous commission was more directed at the broader issues on how [federal subsistence] would impact the State of Alaska. He related that the previous commission conducted overviews of the 72 management plans that were in place at the time, including the 9 major park plans. MR. ACKELS turned to the makeup of the commission, which he said was very diversified. In fact, at one time over half of the commission's membership was rural and not urban, he opined. With regard as to how the commission should be set up, Mr. Ackels emphasized that the commission should not be beholden to any agency. The aforementioned is what caused its demise. Problems began, he said, when the commission was moved from the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) to DNR. Mr. Ackels related that CACFA was the only group that could file lawsuits which made it effective. However, the Alaska Land Use Council, a parallel entity, became ineffective because it had no way of backing up its recommendations with any type of legislation to stop things from happening. MR. ACKELS recalled the previous commission's problems with funding because once the commission was placed in DNR, CACFA's funding was zeroed out each fiscal year. The initial budget of CACFA in 1981 was about $530,000. From 1984 on the funding began to deteriorate. Once the budget fell to less than $200,000 a year it became a burden to do its work. MR. ACKELS stressed his belief that the commission is vitally important. "We're not looking at just certain user groups and how it will affect certain user groups," he said. "What we're looking at is what the state's going to be in the future." He mentioned that several public land orders (PLOs), although obsolete, are still in place. He gave details on the PLO of the Dalton Highway as one example of an issue that will affect both user groups and the state. MR. ACKELS suggested funding the commission in blocks of five to ten years or indefinitely so that it is not beholden to DNR, ADF&G, or anybody else. He recommended that, if the commission was based out of OMB, it be with the understanding that the commission's directions and activities do not change when governors change. MR. ACKELS acknowledged people's fears and said that CACFA will not interfere with subsistence unless it involves navigable riverbeds. He expressed concern that the upcoming 2009 fast- track bill could limit state and inholder access to federal lands by creating new conservation system units. Mr. Ackels concluded by emphasizing that the AG's office is very important and that someone from the AG's office always attended the [previous] commission's meetings. 1:58:22 PM RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing Association, noted that the Kenai Peninsula is a mixture of federal and state lands along with private property. He opined that a commission is important for ensuring that management agencies adhere to federal regulations. Mr. Gease pointed out that the state has filed requests for reconsideration because the federal subsistence board has been inconsistent and has not followed federal subsistence policies and procedures as directed. Mr. Gease stressed that it would be nice for people to have a place to go to express their feelings and have those issues be researched. Because there are a lot of land use issues coming up on the Kenai Peninsula, Mr. Gease offered his wholehearted support for a commission. 2:00:38 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON closed public testimony and announced that HB 87 would be held for further consideration. REPRESENTATIVE ROSES related concern with the indeterminate fiscal note and asked that a figure for making it a viable commission be brought to the committee. He also requested a legal opinion regarding whether the state could be put into an adverse position should a citizen believe the commission failed to act in serving that citizen's purpose. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG requested a funding history of the former CACFA. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON agreed with getting a legal opinion, but shared his philosophy that the House Resources Standing Committee should deal with the resource aspect of bills and let the House Finance Committee use its expertise to deal with the financial aspects.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|