03/23/2005 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB192 | |
| HB174 | |
| HB37 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 192 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 23, 2005
8:35 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas, Co-Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Woodie Salmon
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Harris
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 192
"An Act relating to requirements to obtain and maintain a
fisheries business license; relating to security required of
fish processors and primary fish buyers; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 192(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 174
"An Act relating to commercial fishing permit and vessel license
fees; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 174(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 37
"An Act relating to public access to fishing streams."
- HEARD AND HELD
PRESENTATION: REDFERN RESOURCES REGARDING THE TULSEQUAH CHIEF
MINE
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 192
SHORT TITLE: FISHERIES BUSINESS LICENSE; BOND
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/02/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/02/05 (H) FSH, L&C, FIN
03/09/05 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
03/09/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/09/05 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/16/05 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
03/16/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/21/05 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
03/21/05 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/23/05 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 174
SHORT TITLE: FISHING PERMIT AND VESSEL LICENSE FEES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SAMUELS
02/24/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/05 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
03/23/05 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 37
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC ACCESS TO FISHING STREAMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GARA
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) FSH, RES
03/21/05 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
03/21/05 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/23/05 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CHUCK HARLAMERT, Juneau Section Chief
Tax Division
Alaska Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the committee substitute for HB
192 on behalf of the governor and answered questions.
IAN FISK, Staff
to Representative Bill Thomas
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an amendment to HB 192 on behalf
of Representative Thomas.
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 174 as bill sponsor.
FRANK HOMAN, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 174.
JERRY McCUNE, Lobbyist
for United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 174.
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 37 as sponsor.
BOB CHURCHILL, President,
Alaska Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers (FFF)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR GABRIELLE LEDOUX called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:35:00 AM. Representatives
LeDoux, Thomas, Wilson, Salmon, and Elkins were present at the
call to order. Representative Kapsner arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 192-FISHERIES BUSINESS LICENSE; BOND
8:35:50 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 192, "An Act relating to requirements to
obtain and maintain a fisheries business license; relating to
security required of fish processors and primary fish buyers;
and providing for an effective date."
8:35:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt the committee substitute
for HB 192, Version 24-GH1013\F, Utermohle, 3/17/05, as the
working document. [There being no objection, Version F was
before the committee.]
8:36:28 AM
CHUCK HARLAMERT, Juneau Section Chief, Tax Division, Alaska
Department of Revenue (DOR), presented the committee substitute
for HB 192 on behalf of the governor. He reviewed the changes
that the CS would make to the original bill. The first change
is in Section 1, page 2, lines 7 and 22, which he said is "an
additional requirement for licensure; ... it basically places
local fisheries taxes among the list of obligations that must be
paid by a processor in order to licensed." The second change is
that a new Section 2 has been inserted which he said:
gives processors a break during the period between
January 1 and March 31. ... Under current law they are
required to post security covering their unpaid
estimated tax for the prior year, which is not paid
yet, and the new license year. During that three-
month window they essentially are stuck with posting
security for two years of tax. This [bill] allows the
[DOR] to accept ... the same security for both years
during that short period if it's acceptable to [DOR],
and that should provide a significant cash flow
benefit to processors during that tight period.
8:38:04 AM
MR. HARLAMERT, in response to Co-Chair LeDoux, said that the
processors are not required to pay the prior year's tax until
March 31, therefore, under current law the processor would have
to either pay that tax before the due date or "pony up" an
additional year's worth of security. He noted that for this
change to apply, the processor must be current in its taxes and
be licensed during January through March.
MR. HARLAMERT pointed out that the third change to the original
bill is in Section 3, which was previously Section 2; on page 4,
line 7, tenders are added as bond beneficiaries. He noted that
under current law, employees, fishermen, and the Alaska
Department of Labor and Workforce Development can file a claim
against the bond. He said, "This adds tender operators to that
list. They are required to get a judgment; having done so, they
can collect against the bond."
8:40:01 AM
MR. HARLAMERT turned to the next change in the bill, which is on
page 6, line 14. The word "may" was changed to "shall" so that
the bill would conform to existing law and the commissioner
would be required to waive the filing of a performance bond
under certain conditions.
8:41:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the bill would prevent processors
from not paying fishermen.
MR. HARLAMERT replied that the bill wouldn't automatically
prevent that from happening. He noted:
Under existing law, you actually have to have a claim
paid from the bond in order to affect the bonding
requirement of the [processor], and ... in all cases,
old and under this proposed law, fishermen have to
pursue a claim. Under current law, if they pursued a
claim, it could impact the processor's bonding
requirement, and under this law it will impact it.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if there is a simple procedure that
all fishermen know to follow if they have not been paid by a
processor.
MR. HARLAMERT replied that he assumed that fishermen know, but
they may not. Where they have to go, under current law and this
bill, he said, is to the court to obtain a judgment.
8:43:08 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX remarked, "I thought somebody was going to look
into the constitutionality of simply allowing a short,
administrative hearing for tendermen and fishermen and employees
to be able to go against the bond without going through a full
court hearing."
MR. HARLAMERT replied that he was not aware of that expectation.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS noted that he had filed against a bond once and
he didn't hire an attorney but instead went to a magistrate.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX commented that it depends on the amount a person
is seeking; a small claims court action would be dealt with
through a magistrate.
8:45:04 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked for confirmation that the bond is $10,000.
MR. HARLAMERT replied that the basic bond level is $10,000,
which is unchanged from prior law. He noted that this is the
highest bond in the country for fish processors. He continued,
"It makes the bonding requirements, stepping up to either the
$50,000 or the $100,000 level, more responsive to [processor]
behavior, so it's easier to have the bond increased under this
bill than it is under current law."
8:46:11 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony.
8:47:02 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS moved to adopt [Amendment 1], which read
[original punctuation provided]:
p.6, line 21: delete "employee or fishermen"
add "employee, fishermen, or contracted raw fish
transporter"
p.8, line 7: delete "employee or fishermen"
add "employee, fishermen, or contracted raw fish
transporter"
p.8, line 11: delete "employee or fishermen"
add "employee, fishermen, or contracted raw fish
transporter"
IAN FISK, Staff to Representative Thomas, Alaska State
Legislature introduced [Amendment 1] on behalf of Representative
Thomas. He explained that the amendment would allow "contracted
raw fish transporters" to obtain final judgment against a
processor's bond.
8:48:06 AM
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
8:48:16 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS moved to report CSHB 192, Version 24-GH1013\F,
Utermohle, 3/17/05, as amended from committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 192(FSH) was reported from the House Special
Committee on Fisheries.
HB 174-FISHING PERMIT AND VESSEL LICENSE FEES
8:48:57 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 174, "An Act relating to commercial fishing
permit and vessel license fees; and providing for an effective
date."
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS, Alaska State Legislature,
presented HB 174 as bill sponsor. He stated:
In 2001, the [Carlson v. State of Alaska] decision
found that the method of charging nonresident
commercial fishing permits three times the resident
permit was discriminatory, and legislation in 2003
replaced the 3:1 formula as determined by the court.
The permit fee structure that we currently have since
the Carlson decision has a steady decline in value in
some of the fisheries around the state. It's caused a
steady decline in funds to [the Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission (CFEC)]. [House Bill] 174 will help
fund CFEC by removing the arbitrary $300 cap and
allowing the permit renewal fees [to be] based on true
value of the fishery. Some of the points of it are:
it changes the nonresident fee differentials on a per
person rather than on a per permit basis. It charges
nonresidents who qualify for the reduced permit fee by
meeting low-income standards the full allowable
nonresident differential. ... It increases the annual
fees for commercial vessels beginning in 2006 by
various length categories, and it authorizes CFEC to
charge reasonable fees for the initial issuance and
replacement of stickers for display of the [Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)] numbers.
8:50:56 AM
FRANK HOMAN, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC), Alaska Department of Fish & Game, reiterated that the
bill was formulated in response to Carlson. He noted that the
CFEC has recently had a decline in revenues and therefore it
would like to adjust the permit fees and the vessel license
fees. He continued:
Because CFEC is a receipt-supported agency, it has no
general funds. Our outlook with declining revenues is
that in [2006], we wouldn't be able to cover our
budgetary obligations. ... We have been talking to a
number of the fishing associations and ... our
proposal is that with the passage of the bill, we
would have a public hearing process to establish new
fee categories....
COMMISSIONER HOMAN noted that his letter to Representative
Samuels, which is in the committee packet, discusses the public
hearing process. A new fee structure would be required if the
cap was lifted, and he remarked that the [CFEC] would determine
that structure in cooperation with the fishing community.
8:54:31 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if there is proposed fee schedule out now.
COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied that a list of proposed fees is
included in the committee packet. He stated, "Those fisheries
that are economically healthy would be in a higher fee class;
they wouldn't artificially be held to the $300 cap as they were
previously."
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER remarked that she is pleased to see that
the proposed fee schedule is based on a sliding scale.
COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied that the current minimum [permit fee]
is $60 and the minimum would rise to $75 under the proposal, but
"because we're going to a public hearing that could also be
modified." He noted that there is a poverty category for those
who are on federal assistance, which costs half the regular fee.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked Commissioner Homan if he would
consider referring to it as anything other than "poverty."
COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied, "Certainly."
8:58:09 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked at what increment the sliding scales go
up.
COMMISSIONER HOMAN responded that he could get that information.
He added, "Where there is a limited fishery, the value is
established by the permit value, and where it's an unlimited
fishery, it's by the gross earnings in that fishery."
8:59:07 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS commented on longline fisheries in outside
waters that have Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) that [the
state] can't assess. He opined, "It's too bad that we can't
somehow ... figure out how you tap into that ... big resource."
COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied:
We do issue halibut and black cod permits, and they
are based on the same principle of permit value or
gross earnings, and so we do try to recognize the
differences in those fisheries by that method, but ...
in the public hearing process we'd be looking also at
those blocks of IFQs that are very small [that] are
sometimes lumped into the larger blocks. ... We're
trying to come up with a mechanism that recognizes
that difference.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS clarified that he was referring to the "IFQ gulf
fishermen" which is inside Alaskan waters. He remarked that the
CFEC doesn't assess those fisheries by volume of fish caught;
everyone pays the same amount, regardless of how many pounds
they have.
9:01:33 AM
COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied that this was an issue that the CFEC
was aware of and plans to look at during the public hearing
process.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the largest increase resulting
from this bill would be $90.
COMMISSIONER HOMAN pointed out that this was for the vessel
license.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked by how much the permit fee would
increase.
COMMISSIONER HOMAN referred to a spreadsheet contained in the
committee packet.
9:03:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked for further clarification regarding
the bill.
COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied that there are two parts to the bill:
a permit fee increase and a vessel license fee increase. He
explained that for a limited fishery, the permit fee would equal
0.4 percent of the value of the permit, and for an unlimited
fishery, the fee would equal 0.4 percent of the gross earnings.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if the formula was "adjusted
depending on what CFEC is looking at for their [fish] tickets
from the previous year."
9:05:38 AM
COMMISSIONER HOMAN reiterated that the fees are adjusted each
year based on either permit values or gross earnings from fish
tickets.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked how the CFEC assesses the gross
value of a permit.
COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied that the value of the limited permit
is a marketplace reflection of the fishery.
9:07:55 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if the maximum fee for the permit fee
would be $3,975, as listed in the spreadsheet.
COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied that the numbers were not set, but
were an illustration to show how the fee would reflect the
economic return of a fishery. He explained that the new fee
schedules would be produced during the public hearing process.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX commented that the fees would then have nothing
to do with each individual fisherman's receipts. She remarked
on another concern, that "the trawlers in Kodiak can conceivably
be paying as much for their permits as the big at-sea processors
out west."
9:09:32 AM
COMMISSIONER HOMAN noted that he had discussions with fishermen
from [Kodiak], and said, "We can make those distinctions in the
public hearing process ... [to ensure that] the fishermen would
be in a class with like fishermen and not in a class with
significantly different [sized boats]."
9:10:28 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if the CPEC had considered putting a 1
percent tax on top of the raw fish tax to be used as a revenue
source. He noted that this type of tax would "hit the people
who are making more on the top end."
COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied: "I think that might be a reasonable
approach. I think it's a more complicated approach for us right
now, but I think it's something that the state [should]
certainly look at as a way to ... consolidate the various fees."
CO-CHAIR THOMAS pointed out that this type of tax would hit each
fishery in a different way, based on their income.
9:12:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked for further clarification of the
nonresident fees.
COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied that there is a nonresident
differential which doesn't show in the bill because "all the
fees, resident or nonresident, are the same in the same
fisheries, but for the nonresident we add a $115 differential."
He stated that each nonresident would pay one $115 fee
regardless of how many permits they hold. This would bring in
less revenue than before, he noted.
9:15:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if there is a way to attach a
sliding scale to nonresident fisherman.
COMMISSIONER HOMAN responded that there is not.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that there is never enough money
in the budget for Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) to
"do what they need to do." She pointed out that under this
bill, the largest increase any boat would have to pay in vessel
fees would be $90, and the smallest increase would be $15. She
remarked that she thought this would be a worthwhile fee raise.
9:17:31 AM
COMMISSIONER HOMAN stated that the CFEC budget "has been fairly
flat for years." He commented, "[In the past], fees that have
been collected have first gone to fund CFEC and then there have
traditionally been excess funds that ... the legislature has
appropriated to the [ADF&G] for commercial fisheries support
activities and projects."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that the fiscal note shows
that the fees would bring in another $300,000.
COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied that the proposed vessel fees would
indeed bring in an additional $300,000. He noted that the
permit fees would generate an additional $2 million, and
therefore the bill in total would generate about $2.3 million.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the $2.3 million would be
allocated to CFEC.
COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied that that was a legislative decision,
but traditionally that has been the case.
9:21:00 AM
JERRY McCUNE, Lobbyist for United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA),
testified in support of HB 174. He commented that the fishermen
are prepared to negotiate the higher fees.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Mr. McCune if he had received any
complaints regarding the vessel license fee.
MR. McCUNE replied that he had not heard any complaints.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that the fishermen plan to
negotiate permit fees to a lower price; however if the vessel
fees were eliminated, the CFEC would have to raise the
additional $300,000 via the permit fees.
Mr. McCUNE replied that as he understood it, if the permit fees
were imposed as written in the bill, the CFEC would be over
budget even without the vessel fees. He concluded, "There's
room for negotiations still without the increase in the vessel
fees."
9:23:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that this bill is a chance for
the CFEC to increase its budget. She commented, "I understand
where the fishermen are coming from, but this is for their
benefit. ... These are little increments that might make a
difference for the [CFEC}." She reiterated that the largest fee
increase would be $90.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS pointed out that the bill would increase vessel
fees 40-60 percent. He noted that he represents a lot of small-
vessel owners to whom this increase would be considerable.
9:27:10 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS remarked that he would like to omit the vessel
fee. He commented that the fee would adversely affect hand
trollers in several of the communities that he represents.
9:28:21 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS moved to adopt [Amendment 1], which read
[original punctuation provided]:
P.2, Line 5: Delete Sec. 2
P.3, Line 17: Delete Sec. 4
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected for discussion purposes. She
asked Co-Chair Thomas how large the [hand troller] boats are.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS replied that the boats are 25-50 feet long.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that the increase in fees for
those boats would be $30.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS commented that a lot of the hand trollers gross
about $5,000-$6,000 per year, and they already have high fuel
costs to contend with.
9:29:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what kind of permits the fishermen
with the 25-50 foot boats have.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS replied that most of them would fall under the
[currently] $180 fee range, which by this bill would be
increased to $225, and therefore the increase would be $45.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON summarized that with both the vessel fee
increase and the permit fee increase, these fishermen would be
paying a total of less than $100 additional each year.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS noted that this would be true if a fisherman has
only one permit; however, if a fisherman owns several permits,
he/she would pay a different fee for each permit. He remarked
that the insurance rates for fishing vessels have gone up almost
100 percent in the last four years.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON withdrew her objection.
9:31:47 AM
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:31:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER moved to report HB 174, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB
174(FSH) was reported from the House Special Committee on
Fisheries.
HB 37-PUBLIC ACCESS TO FISHING STREAMS
9:32:21 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 37, "An Act relating to public access to
fishing streams."
9:32:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB
37 as bill sponsor. He explained that the bill is an attempt to
ensure public access to stream bank lands. There are a number
of streams in Alaska where people hike and fish with the
assumption that the land is public, but it's actually privately
owned, he pointed out. He stated, "There's a fear among some in
the fishing community that while today things are fine, [in the
future] as these lands get developed, people won't have access
to their trout streams and steelhead streams and salmon streams
any more." He opined that the state has generally done a very
good job at maintaining public access to fishing streams; since
the 1980s the state has been required to maintain public access
to and along fishing streams when it gives away land. However,
prior to this requirement, there were a number of federal land
transfers to private parties where no public access was
reserved. He explained that under HB 37, ADF&G would identify
certain areas where the public would benefit from public access
to fishing streams, and the resulting list would "create public
discussion about whether or not we should ever negotiate to try
and get some of these lands back into public ownership, or get
public easements back."
9:35:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA emphasized:
The land trades or land purchases could only occur
with a willing, voluntary landowner who wanted to
engage in a land trade or land sale. ... There's
nothing about this bill that gives the state the power
to take anything from anybody; it's just a voluntary
program, and really the list is created in a way to
create public discussion so we can get some of these
stream bank lands back into public ownership before
they're developed.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA presented a few examples of streams and
rivers where the public fish on private lands. He pointed out
that the Anchor River on the Kenai River is a highly valued
steelhead and salmon stream, and much of it is privately owned
but hasn't been developed yet. There are many privately owned
fishing streams along the Parks Highway as well. He stated that
the streams haven't been developed much yet, but "one of these
days [they] will be and the public will lose access to them."
Therefore, he said:
That's the motivation behind the bill: it's to keep
this quality of life we have here where we're able to
access the outdoors, and use the outdoors, and enjoy
the outdoors in a way where, in other states, many of
the prized fishing streams you have to pay for access,
sometimes thousands of dollars a week to a rancher or
to a lodge owner to access a fishing stream. We just
want to make sure that doesn't become the case here.
9:37:26 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked, regarding the specific pieces of land
that had been mentioned in the presentation, what was the
reaction of the owners of these properties.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that the landowners have not been
contacted; "if they decide they don't want to trade or they
don't want to sell, they just won't." He mentioned that a
property owner on Deep Creek has expressed an interest in
selling her property to the state.
9:38:28 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if there was a fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that there was a zero fiscal note
from ADF&G because it can do this as part of its current duties.
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would have to
do appraisals and land surveys, and therefore they have a
$40,000 fiscal note.
9:39:17 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if the bill would be continuous, with no
sunset date.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that ADF&G would put together a list
of streams and the state would decide if and when to trade or
buy the land on the list. The ADF&G could add to the list, but
"if at some point the state decides [that it is] not going to
buy or trade for anymore land, the list probably won't change
anymore and it will just remain there.
9:39:58 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS turned to page 3, line 24, and voiced concern
about the need to allow for an appeal.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that an appeal process was left
out of the bill because "we'd like [ADF&G] to come up with a
list of sort of high value areas that we'd like to get public
access back on. We can do that in a very easy way and say,
'Look you have the expertise within your agencies and within DNR
to know what those areas are now' take public testimony, get
some public comment, and that's provided for in the bill, and
then just come up with a list. Or we could impose very specific
standards on which lands they would have to pick, and if we did
that and had an appeals process that required more formal
studies to determine which lands would end up on the list, I
think it would just become very expensive and so I tried to
avoid any sort of formal process that would impose the expense
of appeal, that would impose the expense of studies, that ... ok
the expense of staff. The bill as it is written right now is
pretty informal
9:41:38 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS turned to page 4, line 12 and voiced concern
that the state would take over the private property for a very
low price.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA answered that the intention of the bill was
"to do the exact opposite," and give the state the ability to
offer more than the fair market value for property. He
mentioned that he would be willing to take this part out of the
bill if the committee so wished. He also noted, "There can
never be a land purchase under this bill unless the private
property owner wants to sell it."
9:43:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER commented that the Bethel region is all
federal land and native allotments, and she stated, "I'm worried
about the regions of the state where the rivers abut state land
or private land, and then the access of subsistence users."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked that there is already public access
to federal lands and so this bill would have no impact on those.
He continued:
The intent is to allow public access for all Alaskans,
whether it's subsistence users, sport fish users,
other recreational users, [or] commercial users; it's
to maintain public access so all Alaskans can enjoy
the public resource. ... This bill actually doesn't
change the law anywhere or have any impact except that
it allows the state to try and engage in voluntary
land trades and purchases to get some more public
access with a willing property owner.
9:44:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Representative Kapsner,
reiterated that the state would only buy land from landowners
who wish to sell.
9:45:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how the state would deal with the
Alaska Mental Health Trust Land near Wrangell.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that when the state retained
easements and public access to streams when it transferred lands
to the Mental Health Trust.
9:46:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated concern about the list because
local residents may not want others to know the locations of the
nearby fishing streams.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded, "It's the conflict between trying
to protect an area and not wanting to talk about it." He noted
that the areas Representative Wilson referred to are probably
already publicly accessible and therefore wouldn't end up on the
list. He continued:
We're trying to keep the list very small, [naming
only] the highest priority lands ... where the public
doesn't have access, and so we said roughly ... two
miles' worth of land should be on the list, so they
probably wouldn't get into an area like
[Representative Wilson is] talking about anyway. ...
But I don't know how to get public access to a stream
without mentioning it. ... The list isn't a list of
places that are great places to fish; it's a list of
places where there's no public access.
9:48:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON remarked that this bill would be bad for
his district. He expressed concern that if "[the state wants]
that land they'll get it, no matter how.... If they want to get
it, they'll get it. ... Privately dealing with [the state] is
not good for the public to begin with." He opined that the
state should have allowed for public access to begin with. He
commented that he viewed the bill as an attempt to expand
Anchorage, because "Anchorage is in kind of a little fishbowl
area and now [Anchorage residents] want more room to play, and
if they should play, then they should pay."
9:51:12 AM
BOB CHURCHILL, President, Alaska Council of the Federation of
Fly Fishers (FFF), testified in favor of HB 37. He commented
that he understood the concern regarding the possible influx of
people to areas, but he stated that he didn't think this would
happen because travel is very expensive in Alaska. He did
express concern that if land passes into private ownership and
then "gets locked up," then average Alaskans can no longer use
those streams. He said:
There may be a belief that you're going to get
inundated in areas outside of the population centers;
[however] I think [that HB 37] is far more
advantageous to those that live in those areas now,
that they can continue to have access. I see the land
being bought by folks from out of state, and those of
us that live here and pay our taxes and raise our
children are going to be the very ones excluded if we
don't start moving to ensure we continue to have
public access to these waterways.
MR. CHURCHILL noted that there was an effort on the Kenai
Peninsula about 4-5 years ago where the landowners voluntarily
[sold stream access to the state].
9:53:50 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony.
[HB 37 was held over].
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 9:54:09
AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|