Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
04/04/2005 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB126 | |
| SJR16 | |
| HJR15 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 126 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SJR 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 126-AQUATIC FARMING
CHAIR WAGONER announced SB 126 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR STEDMAN moved to adopt CSSB 126(RES), version F. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
MARY JACKSON, staff to Senator Wagoner, said "acquire ownership
of" was deleted on page 1, line 1 and page 3, line 6, has
revisions of the phrase "on the site". The original version had
it at the end of the line and the CS has it in the middle of the
sentence.
TIM BARRY, staff to Senator Stedman, sponsor of SB 126, said
this legislation was requested by a coalition of the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Southeast Alaska Regional
Dive Fisheries Association and the Alaska Shellfish Growers
Association that have been working for a number of years to
resolve a number of legal and management difficulties which have
prevented the development of a fledgling shellfish farming
industry in Southeast Alaska.
SB 126 amends the state's Aquatic Farming Act to allow
aquatic farms to continue to operate in compliance
with a Supreme Court decision made last April. The
State Supreme Court ruled that the Aquatic Farming Act
requires the Department of Fish and Game to deny
shellfish farmers exclusive rights to what I refer to
as significant populations of wild geoducks on their
proposed farm sites.
MR. BARRY said since that decision, the Southeast Alaska
Regional Dive Fish Association (SARDFA), the Alaskan Shellfish
Growers Association and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) have negotiated an agreement that would allow these
farmers to harvest insignificant populations of the geoduck
clams on their sites without having to replace them. It defines
an "insignificant population" as one that would not support a
commercial fishery. He said it should have a zero fiscal note
from the ADF&G.
3:41:35 PM
SENATORS BEN STEVENS, SEEKINS AND GUESS joined the committee.
3:42:27 PM
SENATOR ELTON said Amendment 1 addressed a fairly broad title
and asked if it was going to be offered.
MR. BARRY explained that the changes in the CS were made to
conform the Senate version to the House version. A title change
was made in the House an hour ago. This amendment was made in an
effort to keep up with what they are doing and there was some
concern about a broad title.
3:43:42 PM
PAUL FUHS said he represents PAC Alaska, one of the pioneer
farming operations. He supported the CS and the amendment. He
pointed out that language in section (f) on page 2 is very
convoluted and needs clarification.
This does not mean that Fish and Game can authorize a
commercial fishing operation on a farm after it's
planted and has been granted. What this language does
is it allows them to say, 'Okay, we're going to set an
insignificant level.' Now if we made a mistake,
despite all of our best efforts to make sure there are
insignificant stocks on there, and then by chance
there's more than that, this allows the state to
assess what's essentially a windfall profit tax on
that....
3:46:10 PM
MR. FUHS explained that it is a common-sense solution to say:
The farmers will pay the 3% like everybody else up to
12,000 lbs, or whatever the amount is set. That's what
Fish and Game has said they are going to set it at.
We'll see what happens in those regulations and then
after that, you'll pay a super tax of 10 times or 15
times the amount that would normally be paid and then
that money could be used to replant other areas. This
is an attempt to address the constitutional issues of
the common property resource. It is limited only by
the common property resource.
The limited entry when the constitutional amendment
went in and then it also said 'and for the efficient
development of aquaculture.' It's never real clear
what that section means. We know what limited entry
means; we have that. So, it's the tension around this
constitutional issue - is why that language is in
there.
3:46:25 PM
ROGER PAINTER, Alaskan Shellfish Growers Association, supported
CSSB 126(RES) wholeheartedly. He said it is vital to the
industry and has been thoroughly gone over by the Department of
Law.
3:47:56 PM
SENATOR DYSON asked why shellfish farming is an insignificant
threat to wild stock and the environment and how it differs
fundamentally from open ocean finfish farming.
MR. PAINTER replied that the biggest difference is that
shellfish are not mobile. Most are kept inside cages. Geoducks
burrow and can go up and down, but can't move around. In
addition, the state has stringent controls on genetics and
diseases. Growers are required to get brood stock from the wild
in the area that the shellfish are being grown. All shellfish
are inspected for diseases before going to a farm or
transferring to another site.
3:50:05 PM
DAVID BEDFORD, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game (ADF&G), supported CSSB 126(RES). He said shellfish
mariculture has substantial promise for the state and the
private sector. It has been prevented from growing to the extent
that it can in large measure because of the question of what
kind of access a shellfish grower has to common property stock.
A Superior Court decision informed the department that the
constitution required it to provide access to insignificant
amounts of shellfish to shellfish farmers. Then, a Supreme Court
decision said the department couldn't do that because it didn't
have statutory authority. SB 126 remedies both of those
problems. It gives the department authority and defines
insignificant stock.
3:52:28 PM
CHAIR WAGONER asked how long it takes for a geoduck to mature.
MR. BEDFORD replied five to seven years.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked why on page 1, line 9, deletes "acquire
ownership of".
3:53:36 PM
MR. BEDFORD replied that as originally drafted you could have a
situation in which a farmer would get a lease for a farm site
and acquire ownership of the stock; he would then surrender the
lease and still own the stock. He wanted to avoid that type of
situation. The department wants the farmer to be able to harvest
a small amount of stock in the course of his business, but not
to own the farm site.
SENATOR SEEKINS added that he understands that transfer of title
to a wild stock of anything under settle law would be at
harvest. He asked if they are not precluding the farmer from
taking title to the ownership of the stock when he harvests it,
but not before it's harvested.
MR. BEDFORD replied that was correct.
3:55:34 PM
JULIE DECKER, Executive Director, Southeast Regional Dive
Fisheries Association, supported CSSB 126(RES). It has helped
resolve a six-year controversy over who gets to harvest the wild
standing stocks of geoducks on farm sites.
3:56:45 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1 to CSSB 126(RES) to
delete line 1 on page 2 and to insert, "An Act relating to
aquatic plant and shellfish farming; and providing for an
effective date." There were no objections and Amendment 1 was
adopted.
SENATOR DYSON moved to pass CSSB 126(RES) from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. There were
no objections and it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|