Legislature(2001 - 2002)

04/09/2001 01:15 PM House RES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB  60-FARM OPERATIONS:DISCLOSURE /NUISANCES                                                                                  
[Contains discussion of HB 82, the companion bill in the House]                                                                 
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced  that the first order  of business would                                                               
be  CS FOR  SENATE  BILL  NO. 60(JUD)  am,  "An  Act relating  to                                                               
agricultural facilities and operations  as private nuisances; and                                                               
to  disclosures in  transfers of  certain  real property  located                                                               
within   the  vicinity   of  an   agricultural  facility   or  an                                                               
agricultural operation."                                                                                                        
Number 0145                                                                                                                     
HANS  NEIDIG,   Staff  to  Senator   Lyda  Green,   Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, came  before the committee  to testify on  behalf of                                                               
Senator Green, sponsor  of SB 60.  He explained  that SB 60 would                                                               
provide better protection for Alaskan  farmers, who had requested                                                               
the  legislation  because  of  the   belief  that  their  farming                                                               
operations  are not  adequately  protected  under current  Alaska                                                               
MR. NEIDIG indicated  many farmers have had  some experience with                                                               
an encroachment  on their right  to farm.  As  urbanization moves                                                               
in,   often  the   newcomers  don't   like  certain   aspects  of                                                               
agriculture such as  the animals, sounds, and smells.   Those who                                                               
move to  the country  need to  know what  they are  getting into.                                                               
People  in other  areas  of  the nation,  where  urban sprawl  is                                                               
creating a  bigger problem  than yet  experienced in  Alaska, are                                                               
taking  action to  protect existing  agricultural operations  and                                                               
avoid unnecessary lawsuits.  Mr. Neidig stated:                                                                                 
     The  Right-to-Farm   bill  takes  the   reasonable  and                                                                    
     innovative    approach   of    coupling   a    farmer's                                                                    
     grandfathered    right    to   continue    agricultural                                                                    
     activities,  to the  filing and  maintaining of  a farm                                                                    
     conservation  plan  with  the U.S.D.A.  [United  States                                                                    
     Department of Agriculture]  Soil and Water Conservation                                                                    
     Service.   In this  way, SB 60  protects the  rights of                                                                    
     farmers  by ensuring  that farmers  cannot  be sued  in                                                                    
         Alaska, for simply conducting everyday farming                                                                         
[There was  a motion to  adopt the Senate version  for discussion                                                               
purposes, but it was already before the committee.]                                                                             
Number 0300                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  asked  Mr. Neidig  whether  the  Senate                                                               
version includes aquatic farming, moose, and timber operations.                                                                 
MR. NEIDIG  replied that  "moose" is  listed in  the definitions.                                                               
Forestry  was   already  in  the  legislation,   and  the  Senate                                                               
Judiciary Committee added some clarifying language.                                                                             
[An unidentified  speaker indicated  "aquatic farming"  is listed                                                               
on page 2, line 16, of CSSB 60(JUD) am.]                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA asked  what the  new language  regarding                                                               
timber is going to mean.                                                                                                        
MR. NEIDIG  responded that he  could not  speak for the  Chair of                                                               
the Senate Judiciary Committee.   However, the language "forestry                                                               
or timber  harvesting" was already  in the  bill.  He  stated his                                                               
belief that it  was the intent of the  Senate Judiciary Committee                                                               
to   add  language   to  cover   that  more   broadly,  including                                                               
manufacturing or processing operations.                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  asked Mr. Neidig what  "manufacturing or                                                               
processing" could mean.                                                                                                         
MR. NEIDIG  reiterated that, at  present, he could not  speak for                                                               
the Senate Judiciary Committee on that matter.                                                                                  
Number 0495                                                                                                                     
PETER FELLMAN, Staff to Representative  John Harris, Alaska State                                                               
Legislature, testifying  via teleconference,  spoke on  behalf of                                                               
Representative Harris,  sponsor of HB  82, the companion  bill in                                                               
the  House.   He  explained  that  the language  added  regarding                                                               
processing  clarifies  language in  existing  statute.   He  read                                                               
lines  23-25,  on  page  2  [CSSB  60(JUD)  am].    He  mentioned                                                               
commodity and processing.   He asked, "If you  can harvest trees,                                                               
what good is it if you can't process those trees into timber?"                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  noted  that the  language  looks  broad                                                               
enough that  someone could  install a  huge processing  plant and                                                               
the bill  would cover it, which  she did not see  as the original                                                               
intent  behind  the bill.    She  asked  Mr. Fellman  to  confirm                                                               
whether she was correct.                                                                                                        
MR.  FELLMAN answered  that under  [SB 60],  if people  wanted to                                                               
build  a large  processing plant  or lumber  factory, they  would                                                               
still be required  to go to [Alaska] Soil  and Water Conservation                                                               
[with]  a viable  plan to  prove that  they can  do this  without                                                               
harming the  environment.  A  small farmer  who feels it  is more                                                               
cost-effective to  harvest a tract  of trees and make  lumber out                                                               
of them, for example, will be covered by this legislation.                                                                      
Number 0678                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  asked Mr.  Fellman if  all farms  now in                                                               
existence have soil and water conservation plans.                                                                               
MR. FELLMAN replied that soil  and water conservation plans are a                                                               
voluntary program  within Alaska  and, in  fact, the  entire U.S.                                                               
He  explained  that   if  farmers  go  to  the   soil  and  water                                                               
conservation district and request  help in protecting their land,                                                               
animals,  and neighbors,  then the  district [personnel]  come to                                                               
their land  and put  together a plan  they can use  to farm  in a                                                               
safe  manner.   Mr. Fellman  said without  having the  numbers in                                                               
front of him, out of 13  districts in Alaska he was certain there                                                               
were 500-600 soil and water  conservation plans; conversely, 500-                                                               
600 other farmers didn't have plans.                                                                                            
Number 0777                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  referred  to her  previous  discussions                                                               
with Mr.  Fellman regarding  either "having  the plan"  or having                                                               
been in  operation for  three years.   She  asked Mr.  Fellman to                                                               
comment  on  whether  he  had   any  opposition  to  adding  that                                                               
language.   She added,  "I know  this is  the Senator's  bill, so                                                               
maybe I should be directing it to her aide."                                                                                    
MR. FELLMAN replied:                                                                                                            
     The  problem with  that is,  ... in  the Lower  48, the                                                                    
     right-to-farm laws  that have withstood  the challenges                                                                    
     from  the [U.S.]  Supreme Court  had  a mechanism  that                                                                    
     could show that the  farmers were doing everything that                                                                    
     they could  do to  farm in  a safe  and environmentally                                                                    
     friendly manner.                                                                                                           
     And so,  if we eliminated the  need - if we  make it so                                                                    
     that there's  two possibilities -  then the  chances of                                                                    
     the  farmer who  does  not have  their  soil and  water                                                                    
     conservation  plan ...  being successful  in protecting                                                                    
     his  crop   against  a  nuisance  lawsuit   is  greatly                                                                    
     The reason  the plan is there  is so we can  prove that                                                                    
     this farmer  is making  every effort  possible to  be a                                                                    
     safe  and   environmentally  friendly  farmer   and  is                                                                    
     concerned about his neighbors.   And that's ... part of                                                                    
     what we're trying to do  with the existing law, to give                                                                    
     it more bite when it comes to protecting the farmer.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  said  she  agreed  with  that  thought.                                                               
However, this  law has  been in  place for over  ten years.   She                                                               
suggested a court could make a  decision on whether or not it was                                                               
going to  allow it to  stand, or  could strike that  provision of                                                               
the law.  She added, "So at  least the farmer who's been in place                                                               
for three years ... has a chance.  ... Isn't that also correct?"                                                                
MR. FELLMAN responded  that the Right-to-Farm law  has never been                                                               
challenged in  Alaska.  If  the farmer is  not a nuisance  at the                                                               
time he  or she starts farming,  the farmer is not  considered to                                                               
be  a nuisance.   In  the legislation,  "we" struck  the specific                                                               
number of years out, because there  was concern that Alaska has a                                                               
five-year clearing requirement, which  could make it possible for                                                               
a farmer  to sit  on his or  her land for  four years,  decide to                                                               
clear it, and not be covered.                                                                                                   
MR.  FELLMAN  concluded that  this  legislation  is in  the  best                                                               
interests of all Alaskans.  It  will cover the farmers and save a                                                               
lot of legal battles and fights  among neighbors.  In response to                                                               
a follow-up question  by Representative Kerttula, he  said he was                                                               
unaware of any cases in Alaska.                                                                                                 
Number 1082                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KAPSNER  referred to  an  amendment  made on  the                                                               
Senate  floor to  the title  of the  bill on  page 1,  lines 2-3,                                                               
changing  "located  within  one  mile"  to  "located  within  the                                                               
vicinity  of  an  agricultural   facility  or  [an  agricultural]                                                               
operation."  She asked how that changes the bill.                                                                               
MR.  NEIDIG deferred  to  Mr.  Fellman, who  had  worked on  that                                                               
change in the House.                                                                                                            
MR.  FELLMAN explained  that in  the previous  bill a  disclosure                                                               
statement said "within one mile."   In "Judiciary" it was decided                                                               
that the liability for disclosure in  Alaska should be not on the                                                               
individual who  is selling the  real estate or the  property, but                                                               
on  the  person who  purchases  the  real  estate.   And  so  the                                                               
purchaser now, under Megan's Law, needs  to find out if there's a                                                               
farm close enough that  bothers him or her.  If  that farm is two                                                               
feet from the house or twenty  miles away, "if it bothers him, it                                                               
bothers him."   Therefore,  in the  vicinity, the  purchaser must                                                               
look around and see  if there is a farm or  a farm operation with                                                               
which the purchaser is uncomfortable.                                                                                           
Number 1265                                                                                                                     
WAYNE  REGELIN,  Director,  Division  of  Wildlife  Conservation,                                                               
Alaska Department of  Fish & Game (ADF&G), referred  to a section                                                               
of the bill that defines  "livestock" [subsection (d)(3), page 3,                                                               
lines 12-14]  and noted  that moose  are included.   He  told the                                                               
committee that  moose are currently  not considered  livestock by                                                               
Alaska law - they may not be owned by a person.                                                                                 
MR.  REGELIN said  the  legislature has  addressed  the issue  of                                                               
moose farming  three to four  times in  the last ten  years, each                                                               
time  deciding  it was  not  in  the  best interest  of  Alaska's                                                               
wildlife or  hunters.  Mr. Regelin  said he was surprised  to see                                                               
[moose  included in  the list  of  livestock], and  he urged  the                                                               
committee  to  remove  that  language,  which  would  potentially                                                               
conflict with  other statutes and  create great confusion  in the                                                               
Number 1349                                                                                                                     
MR. NEIDIG  explained that the  Senate Judiciary  Committee added                                                               
that language and [the sponsor]  didn't consider it an unfriendly                                                               
amendment at the time.   He said he would "leave  it at that" and                                                               
deferred to Mr. Fellman for additional comment.                                                                                 
Number 1372                                                                                                                     
MR. FELLMAN responded  that at the time, in  the Senate Judiciary                                                               
Committee,  he was  unprepared to  address the  moose issue.   He                                                               
offered  his  opinion,   which  he  believed  to   be  shared  by                                                               
Representative Harris,  that moose  should be  "taken out  of the                                                               
Number 1412                                                                                                                     
LARRY DeVILBISS,  testifying via teleconference, told  members he                                                               
is  a carrot-and-beet  farmer  who started  farming  in the  '50s                                                               
under the  federal Homestead  Act.  His  farm has  a conservation                                                               
plan, although it certainly wasn't  required at that time.  Since                                                               
the '50s, subdivisions  have developed all around the  farm.  Mr.                                                               
DeVilbiss  said he  lives with  subdivision dogs  running through                                                               
the farm, as well as four-wheelers and snowmobiles.                                                                             
MR.   DeVILBISS  told   listeners  that   when  neighbors   start                                                               
complaining  about  tractors  working  late  at  night,  or  snow                                                               
blowing off of  fields and drifting across roads,  they realize -                                                               
from what goes on in other  states - that sooner or later someone                                                               
will try to get a legal answer  that makes the farmer liable.  He                                                               
stated his  belief that it is  timely to have some  protection in                                                               
"this fastest growing part of the state."                                                                                       
MR. DeVILBISS  stated his support of  [SB 60].  He  called it the                                                               
centerpiece and  number-one priority of the  Alaska Farm Borough,                                                               
which supports it strongly.   He added that the Matanuska/Susitna                                                               
Borough unanimously supported this as well.                                                                                     
MR.  DeVILBISS  recalled that  the  last  time he  testified  "on                                                               
this," it  was amended  to address the  nuisance of  blowing snow                                                               
and to add  "bison"; he believes that was when  "moose" was added                                                               
to the language.  He said he is "pretty happy" with this."                                                                      
MR.   DeVILBISS  told   members  the   "processing  element"   is                                                               
necessary.    Although his  farm  hasn't  grown carrots  for  six                                                               
months,  it is  still processing  them  and putting  them on  the                                                               
market, which  involves traffic  and hired  help.   Mr. DeVilbiss                                                               
said  eventually in [the  Matanuska-Susitna area] there will be a                                                               
need to freeze fresh vegetables and  put them on the market year-                                                               
round.  He continued:                                                                                                           
     I think the intent of  taking ... that three-year delay                                                                    
     out of  the older version  was so that farms  that came                                                                    
     in  with  a  conservation  plan  would  be  immediately                                                                    
     covered.   I  believe, right  now, if  you bought  land                                                                    
     from  either the  state or  the borough,  you would  be                                                                    
     required to get  a farm plan.  And if  the farm's being                                                                    
     developed in  compliance with the farm  plan, it should                                                                    
     have immediate coverage.                                                                                                   
Number 1695                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR  MASEK remarked  that moose  and bison  are two  totally                                                               
different animals.  She asked Mr.  Neidig - based on testimony by                                                               
Mr. Regelin, Mr.  Fellman, and himself regarding  the addition of                                                               
moose to the Senate bill -  whether Senator Green would object to                                                               
removing moose from the bill.                                                                                                   
Number 1700                                                                                                                     
MR. NEIDIG responded  that it would be left to  the discretion of                                                               
the House Resources Standing Committee.                                                                                         
Number 1745                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA asked  Mr. Wells  [waiting online]  when                                                               
aquatic farming  was added.  She  also asked him to  confirm that                                                               
his division does not cover aquatic farming.                                                                                    
Number 1759                                                                                                                     
ROBERT WELLS,  Director, Division  of Agriculture,  Department of                                                               
Natural Resources (DNR),  testifying via teleconference, recalled                                                               
that ["aquatic  farming"] was  in the bills  from the  outset, as                                                               
proposed by  Representative Harris and Senator  Green, because it                                                               
was modeled  after legislation in  other states.  He  deferred to                                                               
Mr. Fellman for further comment.                                                                                                
Number 1819                                                                                                                     
MR. FELLMAN affirmed that "aquatic  farming" has been in the bill                                                               
since  the  beginning, and  said  there  are aquatic  farmers  in                                                               
Alaska.   He  also affirmed  that the  language in  the bill  was                                                               
modeled from  that of other states  that have had success  in the                                                               
"right to farm."   He said "we" don't feel  like limiting someone                                                               
who wants  to farm catfish,  for instance, "where they  could get                                                               
protection if they  do have a soil and  water conservation plan."                                                               
He went  on to say that  aquatic farming is a  real industry that                                                               
could be a  possible industry in Alaska; therefore,  it should be                                                               
covered by the legislation.                                                                                                     
Number 1874                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  asked,  "Do  they get  soil  and  water                                                               
conservation district plans?"                                                                                                   
Number 1956                                                                                                                     
MR.  WELLS answered  that  it was  a good  question  to which  he                                                               
didn't  know the  answer.   He added  that the  U.S.D.A. national                                                               
farm  statistics   account  for  aquaculture   in  [agricultural]                                                               
statistics.   He surmised that  the U.S.D.A. would be  willing to                                                               
work  with people,  although he  wasn't sure  its staffing  would                                                               
allow for that.  He suggested it could be looked into.                                                                          
Number 1956                                                                                                                     
DOUG MECUM,  Director, Division  of Commercial  Fisheries, Alaska                                                               
Department of Fish & Game  (ADF&G), came before the committee and                                                               
stated that  he just became aware  of this issue when  he came to                                                               
this meeting.   He pointed  out that aquatic farming  is governed                                                               
under the Aquatic Farming Act,  which has provisions to deal with                                                               
impacts, changes in operations,  and expansion of facilities, for                                                               
example.    Without talking  to  DNR  staff  in the  Division  of                                                               
Mining, which is  responsible for DNR's part of this,  and to the                                                               
Division  of  Governmental  Coordination,   Mr.  Mecum  said,  he                                                               
couldn't say if the present  language of the bill poses conflicts                                                               
with existing statutes.                                                                                                         
Number 2009                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR MASEK suggested a friendly  amendment to remove "moose,"                                                           
from page 3, line  13, of the bill.  She asked  if there were any                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  said, "So  moved."  [No  objections were                                                               
Number 2029                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KAPSNER noted  that  "blowing  snow" and  "making                                                               
noise" were not included in HB 82.                                                                                              
Number 2077                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  offered a  second amendment, on  page 2,                                                               
lines 29-30,  to delete  ", manufacturing,  or processing".   She                                                         
explained that this language was  added on the [Senate] floor and                                                               
is not  "well intended."   First, it  appears the soil  and water                                                               
conservation boards  probably won't  allow this anyway.   Second,                                                               
the language, as-is, opens up  an agricultural "right to farming"                                                               
bill  to  something  never intended  -  vast  timber  operations.                                                               
Third, she expressed  concern regarding what would  happen in the                                                               
future if there are amendments to the  law.  She said she is much                                                               
more comfortable with the House  bill, which does not contain the                                                               
same language.                                                                                                                  
Number 2148                                                                                                                     
MR.  NEIDIG,  in response  to  a  question from  Co-Chair  Masek,                                                               
stated  his  belief,  based  upon   [comments  from]  the  Senate                                                               
Judiciary Committee and on the  Senate floor, that Senate members                                                               
felt  strongly  that  this  language  should  be  included.    He                                                               
deferred to the committee, however.                                                                                             
Number 2199                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR SCALZI  asked for  clarification regarding  Amendment 2.                                                               
He  said  to  Representative  Kerttula, "In  terms  of  ...  your                                                               
father's district,  where he grew  up, I would think  there would                                                               
have been a need for that type of industry to be protected."                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA replied,  "I haven't  heard from  anyone                                                               
who  spoke to  that necessity."    She suggested  that Mr.  Wells                                                               
could speak to  whether there has been any problem  to date.  She                                                               
said  there  has  never  been  a  challenge  under  the  original                                                               
statute.   Her concern  is more  along the  lines of  seeing "the                                                               
other  end   of  the  problem,"   which  could  be   much  larger                                                               
operations, should this law subsequently  be amended.  She added,                                                               
"I  think  that  that  was,  more or  less,  the  intent  of  the                                                               
amendment.   So  I'm not  comfortable with  it.   But, certainly,                                                               
it's up to the  chair whether she wants to go  further to ask for                                                               
more information on it."                                                                                                        
Number 2275                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR  MASEK spoke  against  [Amendment 2].    She stated  her                                                               
belief  that  [SB  60]  has been  reviewed  in  Senate  Judiciary                                                               
Committee,  and  that  [the  language  in  question]  is  a  good                                                               
Number 2291                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said he appreciated  [Amendment 2] and was                                                               
going to  vote for it,  but was frustrated  that no one  from the                                                               
Senate was  present to  "defend what  they have  done."   He said                                                               
committee members  had been  placed in a  position of  voting for                                                               
something that no one had defended to them.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA, in  response to  a comment  by Co-Chair                                                               
Masek, clarified that [Amendment 2]  related to only the language                                                               
"manufacturing, or processing", not the entire line.                                                                            
Number 2359                                                                                                                     
MR. FELLMAN commented that if  person who has property with trees                                                               
on it would  be protected, under current law, to  cut those trees                                                               
down, but not to take them  to a sawmill to make something useful                                                               
for the  farm.  His concern  is that people would  be piling wood                                                               
and  burning it,  instead of  running  it through  a sawmill  and                                                               
using  it as  a "processed  product."   A  person whose  neighbor                                                               
complained about sawdust on the  road wouldn't be covered against                                                               
a nuisance lawsuit.   Mr. Fellman said it is  imperative to allow                                                               
people who  have purchased those  trees along with their  land to                                                               
make  a useful  product out  of them.   He  offered his  personal                                                               
belief that  the language put in  by the Senate is  good language                                                               
that he hopes will remain.                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS  expressed appreciation for  Mr. Fellman's                                                               
comment regarding use of timber on a person's own land.                                                                         
Number 2454                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR called  a brief  at-ease at  1:55 p.m.   She  called the                                                               
meeting back to order at 2:07 p.m.                                                                                              
A  roll  call  vote  was  taken.    Representatives  Kapsner  and                                                               
Kerttula  voted  for  Amendment  2.    Representatives  Chenault,                                                               
McGuire,   Stevens,  Masek,   and   Scalzi   voted  against   it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 2-5.                                                                                 
Number 2526                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  made a  motion to  adopt Amendment  3, a                                                               
handwritten   amendment   which    read   [original   punctuation                                                               
     SB 60                                                                                                                      
     p.2, Line 16                                                                                                               
     ", or that is used in aquatic farming"                                                                                     
[An additional  handwritten amendment on the  same handout, never                                                               
addressed  by   the  committee,  was  to   delete  "(ix)  aquatic                                                               
farming;" from page 3, line 6, and renumber accordingly.]                                                                       
CO-CHAIR MASEK objected to Amendment 3.                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  explained  that  fish  farming  is  not                                                               
allowed in [Alaska].   Nor is this part  of anything contemplated                                                               
by  either  [Alaska's]  the original  Right-to-Farm  law  or  the                                                               
right-to-farm  laws  she  has  looked at  with  regard  to  other                                                               
states; she surmised it might  exist in states that allow finfish                                                               
farming, however.   She pointed out a further  complication:  one                                                               
addition  to  the law  at  this  point  is that  an  agricultural                                                               
operation  won't   be  a   nuisance,  regardless   of  subsequent                                                               
expansion of the facility; therefore,  a person could have a very                                                               
small site expand into something that is "huge."                                                                                
Number 2584                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR  SCALZI spoke  against the  amendment, noting  that "we"                                                               
had  just  gone  through   considerable  public  condemnation  of                                                               
expanding the aquatic farming in  Kachemak Bay, and are currently                                                               
dealing with a mariculture issue  in Southeast [Alaska].  He said                                                               
he  thought  it  was  appropriate that  ["aquatic  farming"]  was                                                               
included in the bill.                                                                                                           
CO-CHAIR SCALZI agreed  finfish farming does not  exist in Alaska                                                               
and that salmon farming is against  the law.  However, he said he                                                               
"tends  to think"  about the  mariculture and  shellfish farming.                                                               
For  example, he  is  aware  of approximately  14  farm sites  in                                                               
Kachemak Bay  that could use  protection because of  the pressure                                                               
that exists to remove them.                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR   SCALZI   concurred,   however,   with   Representative                                                               
Kerttula's concern about expansion.   He referred to page 1, line                                                               
14, of  the bill,  which reads,  "on the  site regardless  of any                                                           
subsequent  expansion".   He said  it  is a  sensitive issue;  he                                                           
added, however,  that a  farm could not  be expanded  without the                                                               
concurrence of DNR and ADF&G.                                                                                                   
Number 2653                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA responded:                                                                                              
     I really hear those concerns,  and I think that they're                                                                    
     well  taken,  but  this is  really  [an]  inappropriate                                                                    
     vehicle  for   them.     ...  They're   under  separate                                                                    
     statutes,  but  now you're  starting  to  call them  an                                                                    
     agricultural  operation.    And  it  really  is  mixing                                                                    
     apples  and oranges,  not to  mention fish,  and trees,                                                                    
     and  things like  that.   So ...  I'd be  real open  to                                                                    
     working on that or  getting legislation drafted; I just                                                                    
     think  they don't  belong in  this particular  piece of                                                                    
Number 2688                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR  SCALZI said  he  appreciated Representative  Kerttula's                                                               
remarks,  and  in  some  regards  he  wished  there  were  [other                                                               
legislation].  On the other hand, he stated the following:                                                                      
     I think  that mariculture is certainly  an agricultural                                                                    
     industry, and that  it's a very viable one.   And I can                                                                    
     speak very  clearly to the  pressure that's put  on ...                                                                    
     mariculture farms  in the bay right  now, because there                                                                    
     was a loud  vocal majority that banned jet  skis in the                                                                    
     bay,  also, and  personal  watercraft, and  ... it  was                                                                    
     something that  I thought, "This  is the kind  of thing                                                                    
     that they need protection against."                                                                                        
     All of a sudden, you  have an influx of individuals who                                                                    
     say that,  for no biological  reason, they want  to ban                                                                    
     something;  the numbers  are there  to  boot them  out.                                                                    
     And I  think that  this does  offer some  protection to                                                                    
     those individuals who have invested  a lot of money and                                                                    
     time  in  an operation  that  I  certainly do  consider                                                                    
     along  the  agricultural  lines.   So,  I  respectfully                                                                    
Number 2735                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE    McGUIRE    noted    that   she    chairs    the                                                               
[Administrative]   Regulatory  Review   Committee,  and   aquatic                                                               
farming is  a central  issue.   She told  Representative Kerttula                                                               
she has  high regard for her.   She indicated aquatic  farming is                                                               
alive and well,  however, and referenced the  Aquatic Farming Act                                                               
[not  made  available  in   committee  packet].    Representative                                                               
McGuire  said, "We  do need  to start  to think  about them  as a                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE offered her  belief that [aquatic farming]                                                               
is a viable part of agriculture,  and that inserting it into this                                                               
legislation gives that  concept a strong recognition.   She added                                                               
that it is  different from a fish farm.   She spoke of potential,                                                               
noting that  Canada and Washington  State have  diversified their                                                               
economies  through  the  development  of aquatic  farming.    She                                                               
concluded that it  is a "valuable part" that  should be reflected                                                               
in "this overarching bill relating to agriculture."                                                                             
Number 2820                                                                                                                     
MR. FELLMAN  responded that there  was a  time when there  was no                                                               
rabbit  farming or  fox farming.   Excluding  the farming  of sea                                                               
urchins, for  example, would cut  off part  of the industry.   He                                                               
emphasized the need to keep aquaculture in the bill.                                                                            
A  roll  call  vote  was  taken.    Representatives  Kapsner  and                                                               
Kerttula  voted  for  Amendment  3.    Representatives  Chenault,                                                               
McGuire,   Stevens,  Masek,   and   Scalzi   voted  against   it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 2-5.                                                                                 
Number 2900                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA offered  that  she had  spoken with  the                                                               
House sponsor and  knows the intent is to  protect farms, whether                                                               
aquatic or land-based, from encroachment now.                                                                                   
CO-CHAIR MASEK  thanked Representative Kerttula but  reminded her                                                               
that the bill under discussion was the Senate version.                                                                          
Number 2950                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  McGUIRE  moved  to  report CSSB  60(JUD)  am  [as                                                               
amended]  out of  committee with  individual recommendations  and                                                               
the accompanying fiscal note.                                                                                                   
Number 2969                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  objected, explaining  that [HB 82]  is a                                                               
"much  better  vehicle,  more cleanly  drafted";  therefore,  she                                                               
would prefer to see it moved.                                                                                                   
A roll call  vote was taken.   Representatives Chenault, McGuire,                                                               
Stevens, Masek,  and Scalzi voted  to move out of  committee CSSB
60(JUD) am  [as amended].   Representatives Kapsner  and Kerttula                                                               
voted against it.   [A small portion  was not on the  tape, but a                                                               
written  role call  sheet recorded  the votes.]   Therefore,  HCS                                                               
CSSB  60(RES)  was moved  out  of  the House  Resources  Standing                                                               
Committee by a vote of 5-2.                                                                                                     

Document Name Date/Time Subjects