Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/09/1994 08:15 AM House RES
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE March 9, 1994 8:15 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Bill Williams, Chairman Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman Representative Con Bunde Representative Pat Carney Representative John Davies Representative David Finkelstein Representative Joe Green Representative Jeannette James Representative Eldon Mulder MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT Senator Mike Miller COMMITTEE CALENDAR SB 46: "An Act relating to moose farming and relating to game farming." HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE HB 238: "An Act relating to the oil and hazardous substance release response fund, repealing the oil and hazardous substance municipal impact assistance program and the authority in law by which marine highway vessels may be designed and constructed to aid in oil and hazardous substance spill cleanup in state marine water using money in the oil and hazardous substance release response fund, amending requirements relating to the revision of state and regional master prevention and contingency plans, altering requirements applicable to liens for recovery of state expenditures related to oil or hazardous substances, relating to a restoration standard in certain state environmental laws, modifying definitions of related terms, amending the manner of computing the amounts required for the suspension and reimposition of the oil conservation surcharge, relating to fees to be charged and collected by the Department of Environmental Conservation, and annulling a regulation related to costs for certain site restorations." HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE WITNESS REGISTER SENATOR MIKE MILLER Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 423 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-4976 POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor SB 46 JOHN CRAMER, Director Division of Agriculture Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 949 Palmer, Alaska 99645 Phone: 745-7200 POSITION STATEMENT: Stated most concerns regarding SB 46 have been addressed and answered questions BILL WARD Ward Farms P.O. Box 290 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Phone: 262-5135 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 46 WAYNE REGELIN, Deputy Director Division of Wildlife Conservation Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526 Phone: 465-4190 POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns regarding SB 46 LEE PUTNAM, Representative Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club 6005 Roosevelt Drive Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Phone: 225-7694 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 46 ROBERT SHUMAKER P.O. Box 3712 Palmer, Alaska 99645 Phone: 746-4453 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 46 LEONARD MOFFITT P.O. Box 748 Palmer, Alaska 99645 Phone: 745-3384 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 46 SANDRA ARNOLD, Representative Alaska Wildlife Alliance P.O. Box 202022 Anchorage, Alaska 99520 Phone: 277-0897 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 46 BOB LOCHNER 3325 Tarwater Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Phone: 276-2860 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 46 CAROL JENSEN 8451 Greenhill Way Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Phone: 344-7078 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 46 STANLEY NED, Representative Tanana Chiefs Conference 122 1st Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Phone: 452-8251 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 46 JEREMY WELTON 6810 Steese Highway Fairbanks, Alaska 99712 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 46 OPAL WELTON 6810 Steese Highway Fairbanks, Alaska 99712 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 46 DOUG WELTON 6810 Steese Highway Fairbanks, Alaska 99712 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 46 MEREDITH MARSHALL 429 Edmond Street Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Phone: 225-2134 POSITION STATEMENT: Undetermined STAN STEPHENS, President Regional Citizens' Advisory Council of Prince William Sound P.O. Box 1297 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Phone: 835-4731 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 238 NANCY LETHCOE, President Alaska Wilderness, Recreation and Tourism Association P.O. Box 1353 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Phone: 835-5300 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed any change but if change is necessary, supported HB 238, version Y THEA THOMAS P.O. Box 1566 Cordova, Alaska 99574 Phone: 424-5266 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed any change but if change is necessary, supported HB 238, version Y KELLY WEAVERLING P.O. Box 895 Cordova, Alaska 99574 Phone: 424-5205 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed any change but if change is necessary, supported HB 238, version Y SALLY KABISCH P.O. Box 467 Homer, Alaska 99603 Phone: 235-4060 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 238 PAUL SEATON 58360 Bruce Drive Homer, Alaska 99603 Phone: 235-6342 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 238 KRISTIN STAHL-JOHNSON P.O. Box 2661 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Phone: 486-4684 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed any change but if change is necessary, supported HB 238, version Y KEVIN HARUN, Director Alaska Center for the Environment 510 M Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Phone: 274-3621 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed any change but if change is necessary, supported HB 238, version Y RANDY MCGOVERN 1611 Carr Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Phone: 451-0124 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed any change but if change is necessary, supported HB 238 HILLARY SCHAEFER 8.5 Mile Murphy Dome Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99725 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed any change but if change is necessary, supported HB 238 KARL BECKER, Representative Prince William Sound Conservation Alliance P.O. Box 1185 Cordova, Alaska 99574 Phone: 424-7466 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed any change but if change is necessary, supported HB 238 DAN DEL MISSIER 144 W. Pioneer Avenue Homer, Alaska 99603 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 238 ALAN PARKS P.O. Box 3339 Homer, Alaska 99603 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 238 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SB 46 SHORT TITLE: AUTHORIZE MOOSE FARMING SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MILLER,Frank,Pearce,Sharp,Taylor; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Therriault JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/14/93 60 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/14/93 60 (S) RESOURCES, FINANCE 01/15/93 76 (S) COSPONSOR: LINCOLN 01/29/93 189 (S) COSPONSOR: SHARP 02/01/93 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205 02/01/93 (S) MINUTE(RES) 02/03/93 (S) MINUTE(RES) 02/05/93 240 (S) RES RPT 4DP 02/05/93 240 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G) 02/17/93 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518 02/17/93 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 03/01/93 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518 03/01/93 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 03/03/93 588 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 1DNP NEW TITLE 03/03/93 588 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (DNR) 03/03/93 588 (S) ZERO FNS TO CS (F&G, DEC) 03/03/93 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 03/09/93 (S) RLS AT 12:15 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203 03/09/93 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 03/10/93 710 (S) RULES RPT 3 CAL 1NR 3/10/93 03/10/93 714 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 03/10/93 714 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED Y14 N5 E1 03/10/93 715 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y5 N14 E1 03/10/93 716 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y7 N12 E1 03/10/93 717 (S) AM NO 3 FAILED Y8 N11 E1 03/10/93 715 (S) AM NO 4 FAILED Y8 N11 E1 03/10/93 716 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD READING FLD Y11 N8 E1 03/10/93 719 (S) THIRD READING 3/11 CALENDAR 03/10/93 723 (S) COSPONSOR: TAYLOR 03/11/93 755 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 46(FIN) 03/11/93 755 (S) PASSED Y11 N8 E1 03/11/93 756 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 03/11/93 757 (S) COSPONSOR WITHDRAWN: LINCOLN 03/12/93 784 (S) RECON TAKEN UP-IN THIRD READING 03/12/93 785 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y12 N7 E1 03/12/93 786 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 03/15/93 642 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/15/93 642 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE 03/15/93 658 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): THERRIAULT 04/16/93 (H) MINUTE(RES) 04/17/93 (H) MINUTE(RES) 04/19/93 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124 04/19/93 (H) MINUTE(RES) 02/18/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124 02/18/94 (H) MINUTE(RES) 03/09/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124 BILL: HB 238 SHORT TITLE: OIL/HAZARDOUS SUBS. FUND,TAX,PLANS SPONSOR(S): SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON OIL AND GAS JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/19/93 707 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/19/93 708 (H) RESOURCES, STATE AFFAIRS 03/24/93 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124 03/24/93 (H) MINUTE(RES) 04/07/93 (H) MINUTE(RES) 04/07/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 04/14/93 (H) MINUTE(RES) 04/16/93 (H) MINUTE(RES) 04/17/93 (H) RES AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124 04/17/93 (H) MINUTE(RES) 11/12/93 (H) MINUTE(RES) 02/23/94 (H) MINUTE(RES) 03/02/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124 03/02/94 (H) MINUTE(RES) 03/09/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 94-28, SIDE A Number 000 The House Resources Committee was called to order by Chairman Bill Williams at 8:20 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Williams, Carney, Davies, Green, and James. Members absent were Representatives Hudson, Bunde, and Mulder. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced there is a quorum present. He advised the meeting is on teleconference with Anchorage, Cordova, Delta Junction, Fairbanks, Homer, Ketchikan, Mat- Su, Nome, Seward, Kenai/Soldotna, Valdez, and Kenny Lake. SB 46 - Authorize Moose Farming CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated it is the committee's third hearing on SB 46. At the last hearing, a lot of testimony was taken and at the end of the hearing, Senator Miller was requested to work with state agencies to draft a proposed substitute version. He said Senator Miller's office, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had met and the proposed committee substitute for SB 46 is in committee members' folders. Number 028 SENATOR MIKE MILLER, PRIME SPONSOR SB 46, stated in working with the two departments, 95 percent of the problems on the original version, which passed out of the Senate have been worked out, and stressed the last five percent can be the most difficult. He felt the remaining problem is a philosophical problem. He explained the remaining problem is on page 4, section 4 where current statute is being amended in the definition of game farm animal. Currently the statute includes bison, elk, reindeer and musk oxen and being added are caribou, moose and Sitka black-tailed deer. He noted ADF&G has a problem with that addition. Number 040 SENATOR MILLER believed the department's problem with the ability to set up an experimental animal husbandry program has been resolved on page 8, subsection (c). It is envisioned that moose and Sitka black-tailed deer will probably be included in that program. (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVES HUDSON, BUNDE, AND FINKELSTEIN joined the committee.) Number 061 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked what the impetus is for adding caribou, moose, and Sitka black-tailed deer to the game farm definition. SENATOR MILLER replied caribou, under the 1937 federal provision, cannot be farmed unless they are farmed by a Native group. He felt caribou should be left in the definition because of lawsuits ongoing with the federal government. Taking caribou out of the definition would be a capitulation to the federal government on the issue. He said Sitka black-tailed deer are a farmable animal. In regard to moose, once something is out of a statute and there may be a promise at some point later to add it to the statute, he said it is usually easier said than done. He thought it will be better to include moose in the statute and the experimental process and if it does not work out, a license may never be issued for moose farming. On the other hand, it may be determined that a license can be issued but if it is not in the statute, a license cannot be issued. REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN said moose are not a herd-type animal and are notoriously inefficient. He asked why someone would want to domesticate moose. SENATOR MILLER agreed and stated he would never propose farming moose himself, but he knows there is at least one individual in the audience who would like to farm moose. He added moose farming is one of those things that unless it is tried, how does one know whether or not it will be successful. Number 098 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said on page 8, in subsection (d)(2), it states "demonstrated the ability to properly care for..." and mentioned his mind thinks of dairy farms where an animal, which has been domesticated for thousands of years, lives in hideous conditions. SENATOR MILLER felt that ADF&G will not allow that to happen as there are going to be tight, stringent regulations. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if anyone else had asked for the three new species to be added to the game farm definition. SENATOR MILLER replied there had been one individual who had asked for Sitka black-tailed deer to be added. Senator Miller added caribou because he felt it was important to do so because of the lawsuits. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked what lawsuits he was referring to. SENATOR MILLER replied there are a number of lawsuits filed against the federal government by the state of Alaska on a number of issues and added that the caribou issue dates back to 1937. REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY expressed support for leaving caribou in the definition. Number 134 JOHN CRAMER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE, DNR, stated most of the original concerns on SB 46 have been addressed. He pointed out that game farming is a viable industry in Alaska. There is a need for SB 46 to help the industry as well as allow the department to draft regulations to make the industry even more viable. He said there are problems on SB 46 yet to be addressed but he felt the problems can be resolved. REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE stated there will be oversight involved and asked Mr. Cramer to speak to the fiscal impact. MR. CRAMER replied that DNR has a fiscal note of $10,000 and that money will primarily be used for travel to sites for on-site evaluations. He said in regard to Representative Green's statement about dairy cows, he did not feel the game farming industry will involve populations in a confined setting. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if dairy cows are kept in a barn the entire winter. MR. CRAMER said some are. He noted it depends on whether or not it is a confinement operation. (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE MULDER had joined the committee at 8:27 p.m.) Number 176 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said there have been many discussions in regard to disease problems and asked Mr. Cramer to comment. MR. CRAMER responded the state does not allow the importation of moose and Sitka black-tailed deer into the state. Therefore, those animals cannot be brought into Alaska or purchased from outside the state and brought into the state to be farmed. He said the only source of animals will be from ADF&G and from the resources currently in the state. He stated disease is controlled by DEC and stressed they do a good job, proven by the game farms already in place. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked the viability of game farming the three new animals listed in the definition. MR. CRAMER replied there are farms outside the state currently farming the animals and are successful. He could not speculate whether or not the farming can be accomplished in Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES requested a list of operations who farm the three animals in the lower 48. Number 210 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked if there are places where caribou are being farmed. MR. CRAMER replied there are farms outside of the Seward Peninsula where there are open range grazing type animals in confinement type operations. He added there are confined caribou operations in the lower 48. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he did not understand Section 16, on page 7 which says, "After a person acquires an animal under this section for commercial purposes, a license or permit from the department is not required in order to possess the animal." MR. CRAMER stated that section is referring to an animal which is obtained through the experimental animal husbandry permit from ADF&G. Once the animal is turned over to private ownership, the person is not required to continue to have the experimental permit but rather to have a regular game farm license. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN disagreed and said the language states "a license or permit," not that particular license. He asked where "a license or permit" connects with an experimental permit. MR. CRAMER replied the experimental permit is mentioned in the language prior to the section being referred to beginning on line 7, page 7. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt the entire section is extremely confusing. He also thought the final sentence in Section 16 is confusing where it states, "A license or permit from the department is not required in order to import, export, or possess a game farm animal for commercial purposes under a game farming license." He stated it does not make sense in the context of what is being discussed. MR. CRAMER stated the animals which can be imported into the state are elk, musk oxen, and bison. He said the other animals listed cannot. He thought the language is addressing those animals specifically. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN disagreed that it does not apply only to those species because on page 4, the definition of game farm animal includes bison, caribou, elk, moose, Sitka black-tailed deer, reindeer, and musk oxen. MR. CRAMER pointed out that current statute defines game farm animals as musk oxen, bison, and elk. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated the proposed legislation will include all of the species. He pointed out the new law will say, "A license or permit from the department is not required in order to import, export, or possess a game farm animal for commercial purposes under a game farming license." and game farm animal includes all seven animals. He thought perhaps there is a drafting problem. Number 307 BILL WARD, WARD FARMS, SOLDOTNA, stated he currently raises elk and will soon have musk oxen. He said musk oxen, elk, reindeer, and bison will not be affected by any action taken on SB 46, as they presently are a legal animal to farm. He stated SB 46 will help clean up regulatory power to ensure those animals, and any others added, are managed in a way to make the industry more successful and viable. He felt the animal welfare issue is more of an issue than disease. SB 46 contains language ensuring that animal welfare concerns are addressed. Mr. Ward said from a commercial owner's aspect, animal welfare is critical. MR. WARD stated there are many provisions in SB 46 which will help create a strong and safe industry and one that is pleasing to the public perception. He noted the remaining problems on the bill are a matter of semantics. The closing issues not resolved are whether or not caribou, moose, and Sitka black-tailed deer are going to be included under the definition of game farm animal. He said the Administration does not want those animals classified as a game farm animal but rather wants to allow people with those animals to go through the animal husbandry permit process. Once they qualified and complied with that process, they could then apply to have those animals added to the list. Senator Miller's office was concerned the statute did not contain strong enough language to ever force that to happen and those people would be stuck under a never ending permit, never being allowed to gain ownership after investing a lot of time and money. MR. WARD noted that both versions of the bill which have been presented accomplish the same thing. For moose, caribou, and Sitka black-tailed deer, a person must go through the animal husbandry permit process and comply with strict guidelines, which will be established by ADF&G, before there is any opportunity to own the animals. He felt there is too much to gain in order to lose the proposed legislation due to differences of opinion on the way the wording should be presented. Number 362 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Mr. Ward if he is interested in farming any of the new proposed game farm animals. MR. WARD replied he is not, as he is happy with the animals he is currently raising. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Mr. Ward how many animals does he currently farm. Number 370 MR. WARD replied he has 67 elk farmed on 160 acres currently, with another 80 acres to be added soon. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON wondered if moose will require additional acreage. MR. WARD said he does not have the knowledge to answer the question but in talking with other people, his understanding is that moose require a lot of land to support themselves, especially since they are a solitary animal. Number 385 WAYNE REGELIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, DNR, stated there are many good provisions in SB 46 which will help the game farm industry, and the department supports those provisions. The department is concerned, however, with the inclusion of Sitka black-tailed deer, caribou, and moose in the definition of game farm animals and believes it is wise to keep those three species separate. He pointed out what the department attempted to keep in SB 46 is to allow moose, caribou, and Sitka black- tailed deer to be held by individuals under an experimental animal husbandry permit under the department's authority. Regulations would then be developed by DNR to establish guidelines under which the three species could be added if they are successful as game farm species. MR. REGELIN stated the department feels it is important to keep game farming separate from the experimental animal husbandry permits. He said he was also confused on some of the language contained in the new version because there is a mingling of Title 30 and Title 16; one is DNR regulations and one is ADF&G regulations, and statutory responsibilities are contained in both titles. He felt it will be a legal morass for DNR and ADF&G to have overlapping and confusing authorities under game farming. MR. REGELIN said another concern of the department is that under the experimental animal husbandry permit, ownership is retained by the state but would allow the meat to be sold. The department is concerned about allowing state property to be sold. He felt there is a possibility of resolving the issues and concerns relating to SB 46 or if they cannot be resolved, let the legislative process take its course. Number 429 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE agreed with the concern regarding the sale of state property, especially something as perishable as meat. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS felt there are going to be incentives to poach animals. MR. REGELIN responded the Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection have concerns regarding that issue also. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN requested that at some point a version of SB 46 be presented which represents the point of view expressed by Mr. Regelin. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY stated in 1979 he struggled with the same issues being discussed in regard to farming bison and some of the same arguments were heard. He pointed out that bison has become a good animal for farming and because some people feel it is not economically feasible to farm moose does not mean that someone should not be allowed to try. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS expressed concern regarding poaching of Sitka black-tailed deer. Number 488 LEE PUTNAM, REPRESENTATIVE, KETCHIKAN SPORTS AND WILDLIFE CLUB, testified via teleconference and stated SB 46 provides an opportunity for potential income in rural areas which presently have few opportunities to make money. The farming of game animals, with proper restraint, can be and has been profitable in other countries. If the rules and regulations are strict enough to protect the resource, but loose enough to allow game farmers to profit, the Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club feels that game farming in Alaska can be successful. The club urges passage of SB 46. ROBERT SHUMAKER, PALMER, testified via teleconference and stated he is in the cattle and swine business and is interested in developing an additional business in game animals. He felt the option of game farming should be open to any member of the public. He expressed concern with lines 20 and 21, on page 5 of the original version of the bill which states, "A person who receives moose under (a) of this section after the effective date of this subsection may not raise moose and domestic livestock in the same fenced area." He said if the intent is to domesticate animals, he felt there is a need to be able to farm game farm and domesticated animals together. MR. SHUMAKER said reliance on the veterinarian is important, but he felt there should be something in the bill which provides for the use of information ADF&G already has since they are already farming moose. Number 572 LEONARD MOFFITT, PALMER, testified via teleconference and agreed with Mr. Shumaker's comments. He stated that minimum government involvement is necessary for economic success in game farming. He felt game farming can help offset the decline in oil revenue. SANDRA ARNOLD, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA WILDLIFE ALLIANCE, testified via teleconference and stated the Alliance strongly opposes moose farming, or the farming of any other wildlife species. The long-term implications of allowing moose farming have not been considered. She stressed SB 46 is shortsighted, speculative, largely experimental, and made with the well being and profits of a few people in mind, rather than Alaska or its wildlife as a whole. MS. ARNOLD pointed out that just like any industry, wildlife farmers will have to be monitored, regulated, administered, registered, inspected and tested; paperwork, procedures, and staff time must be established or increased, and there are many questions which SB 46 fails to consider. She asked what is the possibility of disease transfer from farmed moose to other wildlife. She said nobody knows, but the few lines of this bill which require the commissioner and veterinarians to prevent the spread of pests and diseases give little indication how that will be accomplished, or if it is even possible. She felt no matter how well DEC does their job of controlling disease, the risk of disease is not zero and SB 46 has no provisions for what will happen when disease problems occur. She expressed concern about the risk to Alaska's wildlife which farming might pose. MS. ARNOLD asked how animals will be kept separate from wild stock. How will bears, wolves, and other predators be kept from entering moose farms, which they will naturally be attracted to, and will farmers be allowed to shoot bears that enter the farms. She stated SB 46 requires farmers to build a fence to keep animals in and out, but it goes on to say that the commissioner must be notified when an animal escapes and enters, so the bill itself acknowledges that fences are not foolproof. MS. ARNOLD wondered why Alaska ignores the track record of moose farming in other locations. She asked who will absorb the costs of failures and what are the possibilities for increased poaching of moose, if the sale of meat will be made legal. She inquired what costs are involved in certifying, inspecting, and establishing a bureaucracy to deal with all that. She questioned where the fiscal note is. She stated the Alliance cannot support any version of SB 46 and asked the committee to respect Alaska's wildlife and reject the bill. MS. ARNOLD expressed dissatisfaction with not having the latest version of SB 46. She was also unhappy that meetings without public participation were held in negotiating the latest version of SB 46. Number 659 BOB LOCHNER, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and stated he has heard many concerns regarding the wildlife. He expressed concern with the public safety aspect. He has seen many newspaper articles about vehicles hitting moose and moose being destroyed in residential areas. He felt it is important for moose farms to exist to provide the option of transporting nuisance animals to game farms in order to take them away from residential areas. He added that construction ongoing in residential areas involves clearing away a lot of timber and willows grow up, attracting moose. He stressed people are creating the problem, but have no solutions. He stated SB 46 is the only viable solution. TAPE 94-28, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said when there is a nuisance moose in Anchorage, the authorities try and chase it away, they do not try to pick it up physically and carry it away. He asked what are the chances for survival when tranquilizing and relocating a moose. MR. REGELIN responded in the majority of cases, the department tries to move an animal by chasing it away; rarely does the department attempt to move it by drugging it and transporting it. He did not have any numbers on how many are handled, but estimated the department handles several hundred complaints each year in Anchorage. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked how successful is the department in tranquilizing and moving an animal and having the animal survive. MR. REGELIN replied if the animal is tranquilized and left where it is, there is high success; if the animal is moved there are problems. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if there is a need to move the animal does the department have to kill it. MR. REGELIN said the chances are 50/50 or less. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked what the cost is for tranquilizing and moving a moose. MR. REGELIN replied the drugs cost $150 and the time involved would be one-half day for two people. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY stated the person farming would probably be happy to take the moose by tranquilizing and hauling it. CAROL JENSEN, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and stated if ADF&G personnel, who are skilled in tranquilizing animals, do not feel comfortable about tranquilizing and moving animals, she did not believe laymen should be allowed to do so. She expressed opposition to SB 46 and said the bill does not give any consideration to long-term adverse effects. She pointed out the state is totally incapable of monitoring, regulating, and ensuring the welfare and humane treatment of animals in captivity as illustrated by the Alaska Zoo, fur farms, dairy farming projects, etc. There is not one example confirming that the state has the time, money or resources to get involved in what it will take to assure animal welfare. She stated the cost is too high and with the state's budget cutbacks, it cannot be done. MS. JENSEN stated if SB 46 passes, in addition to having an annual license fee, there should be an inspection of the facility before the license or permit is automatically renewed. She pointed out there is only one veterinarian and he has never taken any action before until a critical stage was reached. She noted SB 46 encourages massive breeding which could quickly and easily get out of hand, resulting in the animal population becoming too large for the facility and becoming too much of a financial burden on the owner. This would further result in inadequate care, excessive slaughter, elimination of disease control, and possible total abandonment of the animals which has happened before. MS. JENSEN felt the experimenting aspect of the bill could result in medical or drug experimentation which could be bad for the animals welfare. She expressed concern with sections in the bill which are contradictory. She stated SB 46 does not allow for any public knowledge or comments. She agreed with comments made by Ms. Arnold. She again expressed opposition to SB 46. Number 070 STANLEY NED, REPRESENTATIVE, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE (TCC), testified via teleconference and stated TCC's first priority is to protect the natural resources the members depend on. TCC cannot support any version of SB 46. He said their opposition is based on their religious beliefs regarding the handling of wild game. Native law demands that wild game be treated with respect and must be kept wild and untouched by human hands. He stated other problems with SB 46 include the threat of disease. Infection can be transmitted from domestic stock through water, feces, and other sources. He gave various examples of disease transmittals which have occurred. He stated SB 46 will be costly to the state, including many hidden costs. He said TCC is adamantly opposed to SB 46. JEREMY WELTON, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and asked committee members to pass SB 46. OPAL WELTON, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated ADF&G wishes to hold SB 46 by providing misinformation as they have done for the past six years. She said many testimonies have stated that ADF&G is "far less than honest"; "they won't tell the whole truth"; "their opinion is tainted"; etc. She stated there are two opinions from the Attorney General stating that it is already legal to raise and own game animals under existing permits. Yet ADF&G says it is illegal and implies that it is immoral for Alaskans to help and care for orphaned, starving, injured, and misplaced animals. She pointed out that the Interior has been asking for the chance to care for moose for over 40 years. She urged passage of SB 46. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced SB 46 will be put into a subcommittee to resolve the problems involved. He appointed Representatives Carney, Davies, and Mulder to the subcommittee with Representative Carney to serve as Chair. Number 150 DOUG WELTON, FAIRBANKS, distributed several photos of moose in various captive situations. He said the state has done research and has information supporting small scale farming of moose. He pointed out that moose have been milked untethered and can be called in by a whistle and he did not see any harm in his family having two or three moose on their 40 acres to provide a fresh supply of meat and milk. He thought the public safety issue is a problem in that moose are being killed on highways and the railroad by the hundreds which he felt is a lousy management technique. He stated the animals can be removed, put on farms and can be the breeding stock for a future industry for rural Alaskans. He stated ADF&G is doing nothing. It has been recommended that people be allowed to remove animals regardless of age, putting them to better use. MR. WELTON said deer have been raised throughout the U.S. and are being sold. He noted he can go to almost any state and buy Sitka black-tailed deer but he cannot buy one in Alaska where they come from. He stated moose are being bred, sold, and being held in captive situations. He pointed out that ADF&G has recognized moose as a popular exhibit animal and has gone to great lengths to make them such. A pellet ration has been developed in the state that once a wild animal gets in and eats the ration, they do not want to leave because it is so good. Game farming will be a boon to the local farmer of carrots, cabbage, lettuce, beets, potatoes, etc. He urged the committee to pass SB 46 Number 192 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt Mr. Welton's techniques on SB 46 do not work to his benefit. He stated that Mr. Welton and his family insulting ADF&G and calling ADF&G personnel, they disagree with, liars and attacking the committee process, which is sincere in resolving issues, is not going to serve his purpose. HB 238 Oil/Hazardous Substance Release Response Fund CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated it is the committee's fifth hearing on HB 238. He said the committee met the previous Wednesday and discussed draft version Y. Number 224 MEREDITH MARSHALL, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference and stated she is not an expert nor does she fully understand the proposed legislation. She stated there is not a benefits clause in the legislation and she felt there is a need to set up monitoring and spill response standards along the coast as well as trained personnel in spill response. After that has been accomplished, (indiscernible) a front for major incidents, the fund should (indiscernible). Number 238 STAN STEPHENS, PRESIDENT, REGIONAL CITIZENS' ADVISORY COUNCIL OF PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND (RCAC), testified via teleconference and stated there are two points RCAC wants to emphasize. First, the current system works for responding to spills and accessing the Oil and Hazardous Substance Release Response Fund. The second is to clarify misinformation regarding the adequacy of a 2 or 2.5 cent surcharge to fund the DEC spill prevention and response programs. He pointed out that in hearings on SB 215 and HB 238, no reasons were given for limiting access to response funds for catastrophic spills. There is no evidence that DEC has misused response funds in the course of responding to spills. He said in the last five years, less than one percent of response fund expenditures have been used by DEC to pay for spill response. All other expenditures of response funds have been by legislative appropriation for uses authorized in statute. MR. STEPHENS stated most spills in Alaska are below the catastrophic threshold of 4.2 million gallons. The Exxon Valdez spill is the only spill which exceeded that amount and approximately 2,000 spills occur each year. He noted DEC responds to half of those spills each year. With the spill prevention and response programs developed since the Exxon Valdez spill, hopefully the state will never experience another catastrophic spill. He stressed it is certain that the state will continue to experience the smaller, chronic spills as long as Alaska is an oil producing, refining, and transporting state. Therefore, to protect the health of residents and the environment, on which the tourism and fishing industries and subsistence users depend, the state must continue to diligently prevent and respond to spills. Number 267 MR. STEPHENS stated the quest to reduce response fund expenditures by reducing access to response funds for spill response has no justifiable basis. It also is contrary to one of the primary purposes for which the fund was established and the surcharge was enacted. He said despite some revisionist history by proponents of the concept, the surcharge was not intended to fund exclusively catastrophic spill response. He stressed the current system works well. If anything, it is likely that most communities would criticize DEC for not utilizing the response fund more often in responding to more spills. MR. STEPHENS said he would like to address misinformation regarding the adequacy of a 2 or 2.5 cent surcharge to fund spill prevention and preparedness programs. He noted the Exxon Corporation has been distributing a chart and testifying as to the adequacy of a 2 or 2.5 cent surcharge. In their chart and testimony, they cite a report prepared in December 1992 for RCAC as justification for the adequacy of a 2 or 2.5 cent surcharge for spill prevention and preparedness programs. He stated the use of the RCAC report to justify the adequacy of a 2 or 2.5 cent surcharge for spill prevention programs is, at best, a complete misuse and manipulation of information presented in the report. MR. STEPHENS continued that the RCAC report merely presents appropriations for fiscal years l991 through 1993 for a portion of DEC programs. There was no attempt to analyze the actual costs of running a fully implemented spill prevention and response program. Instead, the report shows that despite the existence of the response fund, funding for spill prevention and preparedness programs has remained relatively constant. Number 294 MR. STEPHENS stated the Exxon chart shows all response fund appropriations for all authorized uses of the fund for fiscal year 1990 through 1994, but compares it only to a portion of the fiscal notes of those authorized uses. Absent is the fiscal note for the ferry despite the jump in the appropriation line reflected by that use. He stressed the chart compares apples and oranges and is both incorrect and misleading. In the chart presented by the Exxon Corporation, the RCAC report is cited as the source which suggests that RCAC produced the chart. He noted there is no identification of Exxon as the chart preparer or the source of most of the information in the chart. He felt it is unprofessional to produce false information and cite another entity as the source. He thought the Exxon Corporation should apologize to RCAC and withdraw the misinformation from the legislative record. MR. STEPHENS said accurate budget information presented in DEC fiscal notes shows that neither a 2 or 2.5 cent surcharge provides sufficient funding for prevention programs at current oil production levels and the problem becomes more acute as North Slope production declines. The splitting of the nickel proposal will force a continued reduction in DEC programs or the supplementing of general fund money at the same time state revenues are also declining. He reminded committee members that interest on the response fund balance is merely general funds by another name. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY stated he cannot identify the chart prepared by Exxon which Mr. Stephens discussed. MR. STEPHENS said it is the chart which they have been showing at other committee hearings. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked Mr. Stephens to send the House Resources Committee a copy of the chart. Number 329 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked Mr. Stephens to comment on local depots and response corps. MR. STEPHENS stated DEC is getting to the point of looking at putting them in place. Communities like Kodiak, Cordova, and Native villages are all at the point where the response depots and training are necessary, but he thought it is (indiscernible) in the coastal areas. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that part of the 470 fund was established for other DEC tasks such as underground tank storage rehabilitation, hatcheries, etc., and to maintain the system as it is will undermine the spill response capability. He asked Mr. Stephens if by testifying in support of keeping the 470 fund as it is, is he endorsing spending money for projects not closely related to crude oil spills. MR. STEPHENS replied yes and felt the 470 fund should come from the tax on the oil industry. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated another place to tax is the users of the petroleum products. MR. STEPHENS did not agree. He stressed if one looks at the overall use of fuel and where the major problems could occur, overseeing a small leak in a tank is very small compared to other jobs needed. He felt the oil industry needs to be responsible for all fuel spills throughout the state. Number 395 NANCY LETHCOE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA WILDERNESS, RECREATION, AND TOURISM ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference and stated the association does not believe any legislation is needed to change the management or funding of the 470 fund. However, if the legislature is determined to pass a bill, the association feels version Y is appropriate. She was involved with many teleconferences in connection with the original 470 fund bill and recalled limiting the fund to catastrophic spills was discussed. However, that was just one perspective on the issue. The prevailing legislation left it open to use for a large variety of other things. MS. LETHCOE stated HB 238, version Y goes a long way toward continuing to adequately fund the state's spill prevention and response program while (indiscernible) the oil industry. She said current U.S. law does not give tourism businesses any legal standing to file for economic damages sustained as a result of a spill. Tourism businesses eat the money which is lost. Therefore, strong spill prevention response programs are the tourism industry's only protection. She noted on the concern about spill prevention and clean up of contaminated sights in rural Alaska, there are not many jobs for people living in rural Alaska. A growing number of rural communities have contacted the association for information on ecotourism, in hopes of getting ecotourism- type businesses. She pointed out that contaminated sites and the potential for oil spills poses problems for their development. MS. LETHCOE stated drinking water contaminated by fuel spills poses problems for some communities. In one particular community, a restaurant is importing water because of a fuel spill in that community which raises costs and the difficulty of doing business. Another community inherited a contaminated site when it was relocated following the 1964 earthquake. The village is located in an area with tremendous tourism potential, but before it can develop tourism facilities it must clean up the contaminated site. In rural Alaska, there are many aging fuel storage areas which are often located adjacent to rivers. She stressed funding is needed to repair or replace them before they cause spills which will create economic, social, and environmental disasters for the local residents, communities downstream, and tourism businesses along those streams. MS. LETHCOE said the 470 fund provides funding for the clean up of contaminated sites and the prevention of oil spills. It makes good economic sense for the state to continue the present funding mechanism for that program. The association also supports depots and volunteer response corps. Both were strongly recommended by the Alaska Oil Spill Commission. She stressed the state does (indiscernible) for volunteers. As the state budget declines, volunteers are one way to make up budget shortfalls and help the people most likely to be adversely affected by spills, if they are themselves well trained, adequately equipped, and prepared to respond. She stressed trained volunteers are important for local villages where it may take time to get spill response teams from the state or a spiller into those communities. Number 475 THEA THOMAS, CORDOVA, testified via teleconference and stated she did not feel any legislative action is needed concerning the 470 fund. She felt the present system works but if the legislature finds it necessary to provide tax relief for oil companies, version Y is the only fair and balanced option concerning the issue. She stated version Y addresses the oil industry's request for tax relief while maintaining the state's ability to prevent, prepare for and respond to oil and hazardous substance spills. Version Y also provides an atmosphere of cooperation and compromise between the oil industry and the people of the state. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he also sees the responsibility of the oil companies to provide financial support for the clean up of oil spills but wondered if Ms. Thomas would agree that the people who ultimately use the fuel also have a responsibility and should pay increased taxes to cover potential spills. MS. THOMAS stated she agrees with Mr. Stephens that most spills are chronic small spills not connected with users. The spills are connected with the transport of oil and in the production and development of oil. Number 509 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated there are many people including himself and the Administration who do support an increase in the fuel tax, but that does not translate that another tax has to be replaced. He felt the state is in a position where new taxes are going to be needed. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed, but stated she would like to see a portion of any fuel tax go into the 470 fund. KELLY WEAVERLING, CORDOVA, testified via teleconference and stated during the Exxon Valdez oil spill, he organized and operated the wildlife rescue fleet. He is very aware of the value of the 470 fund and stated the current legislation is fine, requiring no change. If a change is necessary, he prefers version Y. SALLY KABISCH, HOMER, testified via teleconference and stated she supports the existing structure of the oil and hazardous substance release response fund. She said there has been talk about splitting the nickel and she opposes splitting the nickel, because it will limit response to spills which are not catastrophic. She pointed out that the less than catastrophic spills account for most of Alaska's spills and can often be devastating. Limiting cleanup for large spills puts Alaska's natural resources at great risk. Rather than splitting nickels, doubling the dollars going into the hazardous and oil response fund should be discussed. She noted that coastal communities like Homer, are locally unprepared to respond to a spill. She urged the committee to reject revisions to the 470 fund and focus on the real business, which is not arguing over nickels, but ensuring that Alaska's preparedness and response to spills matches the value of the resources vulnerable to those spills. MS. KABISCH felt there is a need to continue to require that spill contingency funds are up to date at least on an annual basis, and also felt there is a need to free up the Division of Spill, Prevention, and Response to do the work it is supposed to be doing, preventing spills and cleaning them up. She said there is a need for well trained and fully funded response and prevention programs in all coastal communities and other communities as well. She pointed out that people have been waiting since 1986 for the volunteer corps and depots to be put in place. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER thought it is hypocritical when people say it is not broken, do not fix it but on the other hand, they are saying the state is no more prepared today than it was six years ago. He stated the committee's mission is to try and evaluate what progress has been made in the last six years, if the state is more prepared and try to revisit the issues to ensure the state is more prepared and putting the 470 funds to the appropriate end. MS. KABISCH agreed and stated there is a need to free up DEC and other state agencies to do the work they are charged to do. She felt you do not fix it by cutting taxes on the oil industry and cutting the funding to the program. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated the whole issue of whether or not the state is using the 470 fund most appropriately is also an issue before the DEC subcommittees. Number 638 PAUL SEATON, HOMER, testified via teleconference and stated having been through the Exxon Valdez spill, he knows that spill prevention is the most important aspect. He said the (indiscernible) of catastrophic spills is not the way to do it and if anything, more money should be spent on spill prevention, spill training, spill response, and equipment in local areas. He expressed opposition to changing the 470 fund with the restrictions being sought for only catastrophic response. KRISTIN STAHL-JOHNSON, CITY OF KODIAK'S REPRESENTATIVE, REGIONAL CITIZENS' ADVISORY COUNCIL OF PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND, testified via teleconference and stated although she supports version Y, she does not feel there is a need for a bill since DEC is administratively fixing the real problems identified with the use of the 470 fund. She said of all the versions proposed thus far, version Y is the most reasonable in addressing public protection issues and the industry's concerns. She expressed concern that version Y gives the oil industry credit for everything presently in the 470 fund, including the (indiscernible) non-nickel fund. MS. STAHL-JOHNSON is also concerned that version Y gives credit for penalties and fines paid toward the fund which is an anti-incentive for avoiding penalties. She stressed DEC needs the latitude to build strong prevention, preparedness, and response centers around the state and the centers need to be integrated with what the coastal and small communities need in (indiscernible) programs. In regard to comments made that the communities are not any better prepared to respond to spills than five years ago, she said DEC has been hamstrung by what can and cannot be done with the 470 fund because of the issues being debated. There is a need to be able to fully implement the programs and she stressed there is preparedness and response capabilities in all regions. She commented in regard to the purposes of the funds and who should be paying for the response capabilities, the Hazardous Substance Spill Technology Review Council Report stated that 80 percent of spills in Alaska, which have been responded to, involve petroleum products and 20 percent are hazardous substance spill responses. TAPE 94-29, SIDE A Number 000 MS. STAHL-JOHNSON said she does not believe there is a need for a bill to change the problems, but rather there is a need to tighten up, focus the programs, and (indiscernible) to the protection that the 470 fund supposedly promises them. KEVIN HARUN, DIRECTOR, ALASKA CENTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, testified via teleconference and stated the 470 fund does not need changing. He said the fifth anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill is March 24 and he felt that what was learned from that spill is that once a spill happens, there is not a lot one can do about it. He stressed one can do a lot to prevent spills and that is one of the reasons the spill prevention response fund established the nickel a barrel tax. The spill prevention response fund was established before the spill and the tax came as a result of the crisis which emerged. He said often it is much easier to motivate public policy after a crisis. He expressed concern that everyone is forgetting the lessons of the spill. MR. HARUN stated his organization opposes Representative Green's version of HB 238 and commends Chairman William's attempt to balance the public's desire for spill prevention and response with the industry's desire for tax relief. He felt the legislature's role is to advance the public's interest. He said the industry should not be given credit for fines and penalties and the industry should not be given credit for all of the money which is currently in the fund, because 40 percent of the funds came from non-nickel sources. He pointed out that DEC has fixed most of the region's problems. He added that his organization does not perceive most of the money for spill prevention and response coming from the nickel a barrel tax and he asked where the money will come from. Number 042 RANDY MCGOVERN, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated he is not convinced that HB 238 is necessary. The current version of SB 215 and all versions of HB 238, except version Y, are unacceptable. He said more vigilant (indiscernible) should be implemented especially for (indiscernible) spills. He pointed out that a recent spill of 2,500 gallons occurred during a spill drill; another spill released 15,000 gallons and what is scary is the pipe was only two years old and the weight had not been placed in the pipe to alleviate a problem already known to exist; and even more scary is that the alarms were turned off and the spill was discovered by accident. He stated also scary is that the well was producing mostly gas for production for oil from another well, and had that well been producing oil, a massive catastrophic spill would have occurred. MR. MCGOVERN stated it has been said that $112 million has been collected from the nickels and stressed that is not correct. At the inception of the 470 fund, $30 million had already been acquired before the Exxon Valdez spill through fines, cost recoveries, general funds from 1986 through 1989. For every dollar spent for prevention (indiscernible) $100 for response or remediation. If the (indiscernible) of the 470 fund was done four times by legislation and 17 times by appropriation. He said one fact sheet illustrated that DEC has spent 0.9 percent of the available fund but progress still went forward. It was accomplished by dedicated, informed, compassionate people. Without knowledge and training, terrestrial spills will result from pesticides and petroleum products. Visions in the future gave the state double hulled tankers. Visions of the future gave the state command and control vessels. Visions beyond the future gives the state (indiscernible) technology. He asked where are the visions for terrestrial spills. MR. MCGOVERN said the drafter of the Y version at least recognizes that you do not throw the baby out with the bath water. He stressed that present versions of both SB 215 and HB 238, not version Y, should be killed. (Indiscernible) of HB 238 would create a bookkeeping nightmare and added that four separate accounts would have to be established and supervised. (Indiscernible) the 470 fund presents another problem. Consumers, the public, and small businesses would have to pay the bill. He stated glamorous, glitzy, feel good television commercials do not give the state the ability to protect the life and health of its citizens. Maintaining the 470 fund as is will. He urged committee members not to pass HB 238. Number 079 HILLARY SCHAEFER, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and expressed concern with the array of bills moving so quickly through the legislature. She is disappointed with what SB 215 and early versions of HB 238 have to offer. She appreciated Chairman Williams looking at the protection which pollution prevention and response programs offer now and in the future. (Indiscernible) hazardous waste, it is crucial that these programs remain in place for oil spill response and prevention, as well as for hazardous waste spill response. She stressed that Chairman William's version is the only version which is (indiscernible) for the state pollution prevention and response programs and to the oil industry. She said if passage of a bill is necessary, she supports the Y version of HB 238. Number 090 KARL BECKER, REPRESENTATIVE, PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND CONSERVATION ALLIANCE, testified via teleconference and stated he is incredulous that on the fifth anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill the state is contemplating weakening the provisions of the 470 fund. He felt it is dangerous to do that at this time. If anything, the state should be looking at more secure ways to protect the environment from oil and other hazardous substance spills. He stated there is no reason to tamper with the present 470 fund but if the legislature is determined to do something, he strongly endorses Chairman William's version Y. Number 126 DAN DEL MISSIER, HOMER, testified via teleconference and stated he is dismayed that consideration is being made to change the 470 fund. He urged committee members to leave the 470 fund as is. ALAN PARKS, HOMER, testified via teleconference and said he would like to see the 470 fund left as is. He stressed there is a need to concentrate on prevention and preparedness. He felt the nickel surcharge is needed. He described a drill which took place in Homer and pointed out that proper equipment and proper vessels are not in place to handle any spills. ANNOUNCEMENTS CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced that HB 404 will not be heard on Friday because the sponsor has asked it to be held. He stated the committee will hear HB 447 on Friday, March 11 at 8:15 a.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the House Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 10:03 a.m.