Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/23/1999 08:07 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 68
"An Act relating to cooperation with federal programs
relating to management of fish and game."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 68(RES)
"An Act relating to cooperation with federal programs
relating to management of fish and game."
BRETT HUBER, Staff, Senator Rick Halford, testified that the
intent of the proposed legislation is that the State should
not be left with the burden of unfunded federal mandates.
He pointed out that the Court system has agreed with this.
Alaska became a state in 1959. In accordance with the
Statehood Act, Secretary Fred Seaton transferred the fish
and wildlife management responsibilities to the new State in
1960. Since then, Alaskans have witnessed the continued
erosion of their fish and wildlife management authorities.
Mr. Huber pointed out that passage of federal legislation
such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered
Species Act, the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, and the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act have all contributed directly or
indirectly to the loss of jurisdiction. Mr. Huber
continued, equally important are the administrative actions
and legislative interpretations developed by the various
federal agencies. In a recent transmittal to the
Superintendent of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve,
Governor Knowles clearly indicated the growing conflict
with the federal agencies.
Mr. Huber commented that the Governor has commented on the
proposed rule to phase out commercial fishing in Glacier Bay
proper and to develop a cooperative management and planning
system for the remainder of the marine waters. The 1998
Congressional amendments to Glacier Bay National Park and
Preserve (NPP) did require cooperation in the development of
a management plan. Mr. Huber pointed out that it was
obvious from the environmental assessment that the agency
would attempt to exercise its prerogative of overriding
State management when the agency decides the necessity to
protect the park "resources and values."
Mr. Huber noted that Alaska's fisheries management has been
more successful than the Federal management it succeeded.
Although most resources are transient to the Park, it is
believed that Alaska will now be required to establish a
much expanded and expensive research and management program
just to satisfy the demands of the National Park Service,
which has taken the form of an unnecessary and unfunded
mandate.
Mr. Huber stressed that there are a growing number of
unfunded mandates associated with the preempted actions of
the federal agencies. On June 6 and 7, 1996, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service released material related to the
implications of Federal Management of Subsistence Fisheries
in Alaska. The document states that two scenarios could
occur for Federal subsistence management.
The first scenario would assume that the State of Alaska
would cooperate with the federal managers, allowing federal
management activities to supplement State management in a
partnership effort. The second scenario assumes that the
State would not cooperate, requiring a complete duplication
of the State system with federal staff to perform all
management. He warned that would be more expensive.
Mr. Huber continued, Congress and the Federal Courts have
made it clear that states should not be faced with unfunded
Federal mandates. During this period of severe State budget
deficits, Mr. Huber noted that it is important that the
Federal government pay its share, especially when it is the
intent to preempt traditional State management of resources.
Mr. Huber advised that the bill would not prohibit the
cooperation of the Federal agencies. It would require that
when Federal actions restrict State management of fish and
game resources, the State would be fully reimbursed for any
action taken in that cooperative effort.
Mr. Huber listed the points of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) unfunded federal mandate.
? To date, the federal preemption under ANILCA of
State fish and game management has been mostly
applied to wildlife.
? State management costs have increased
significantly in an attempt to comply with
federal law.
? ANILCA provided for reimbursement of up to $5
million for 50% of the State's effort to implement
subsistence provisions in law.
? The federal government has never provided over $1
million, despite the fact that the State has
consistently submitted $2.0 to $3.5 million in
reimbursable expenses.
? The reimbursable expenses submitted to the
federal agencies should have been much higher, as
expenses associated with data gathering required
by the Advisory Committees and Regional Boards,
although, they qualified for federal
reimbursement and were never submitted.
? The federal agencies used the State technical
staff as management instructors until they
reached a point of self-sufficiency and technical
independence. This is clearly illustrated by the
areas where State wildlife management decisions
have been preempted by the federal process.
? The federal agencies are now proposing to
duplicate the same process for fisheries.
? To illustrate how much the State is spending to
facilitate federal management, the "Implications
of Federal Management" booklet indicates that it
would cost $9 million dollars to implement with
State cooperation and $31 million dollars to
implement without State cooperation. In other
words, the State is subsidizing the federal
program to the tune of almost $22 million per
year.
Senator Adams questioned if Senator Halford would support
cooperation between the State and the federal government in
the management of the State's fish and game resource. Mr.
Huber believed that Senator Halford did not favor duel
management.
Senator Al Adams questioned if the bill would send a message
to the public that the Legislature has given up on the
possibility of a resolution. Mr. Huber advised that there
are other bills that recognize these issues.
MIKE SALLEE, Commercial Fisherman, Ketchikan, (Testified via
Teleconference), spoke in support of the proposed
legislation. He stated that if there was a federal takeover
that the State should not be required to pay the costs of
operation. Mr. Sallee voiced concern with Section 1(a) and
the viability of the fish and game population.
LANCE NELSON, Assistance Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, Anchorage,
(Testified via Teleconference), stated that there were
several legal concerns with the proposed legislation. Mr.
Nelson noted that the restriction of cooperation with the
federal government could be unconstitutional and that the
Legislature can not restrict the Executive Branch. He felt
that the Court system would rule the law unconstitutional in
relationship to the separation of power rules.
Mr. Nelson was concerned that the restrictions would
prohibit the State's ability to take legal action against
the federal government for regulations on the management of
fish and game.
DICK BISHOP, Vice-President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC),
Juneau, testified that the Council supported the bill. He
stated that a stronger incentive or requirement for
compensation for the State for costs associated with federal
fish and wildlife management agencies is essential.
Mr. Bishop added that even when the State was in compliance
with ANILCA, the federal support that had been authorized by
Congress was not fulfilled. He emphasized that fair
compensation for services rendered are important in this
concern.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game, testified against
the proposed legislation. He emphasized that it is a "sad
day" when the Department of Fish and Game must testify
before the Legislature on such a bill under consideration.
He qualified that statement, noting that the preference
would be to testify on a solution to prevent such a law.
Mr. Bruce suggested that the way to accomplish that would be
to put the vote before the people.
Mr. Bruce reviewed the intention of the bill. Under SB68,
the federal manager would be prohibited from speaking with
the State manager, unless the agency from which that federal
manager worked, had entered into an agreement to pay the
State judicial costs to cooperate with the federal program.
TAPE SFC-99 #109 Side B
Mr. Bruce voiced concern that the information gathered by
the Department would then be used against it. The
obligation of the Department's activities is a function to
fulfill the constitution mandate for sustained yield
management. He questioned if the State assumes that the
federal managers are going to assume the costs of a
significant portion of the basic State responsibility. Mr.
Bruce stressed that the Department does not believe that
will occur. Under that situation, there are several
possibilities which could happen and that none of them are
good.
Senator Lyda Green voiced her offense with the reference to
the constitutional amendments and the issue of subsistence.
Co-Chair John Torgerson requested Mr. Bruce to direct his
testimony to the proposed legislation. Mr. Bruce stressed
that SB 68 is about subsistence. He noted that the
Department of Fish and Game has urged the Senate Finance
members not to move the bill from Committee. He advised
that such a move would not be of benefit to the Alaska
fishery, resources or the people of the State.
Co-Chair John Torgerson advised that the "sad day" was
when Governor Knowles failed to defend the State of Alaska's
rights issue through the Court System. He believed that was
the "problem".
Co-Chair John Torgerson ordered the bill to be HELD in
Committee.
SB 64 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 A.M.
SFC-99 (18) 4/23/99
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|