04/20/2001 01:50 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 20, 2001
1:50 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 26
Requesting the National Marine Fisheries Service to relocate the
Alaska Fisheries Science Center Steller sea lion research team
to Alaska.
- MOVED HJR 26 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 121(RES)
"An Act adding, for purposes of the Alaska Right-of-Way Leasing
Act, a definition of 'substantial change' as applied to an
amended right-of-way lease application; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 121(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 158(RES) am
"An Act directing the commissioner of revenue to prepare a
report to the legislature relating to the state's participation
in owning or financing a gas pipeline project; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 158(O&G) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 185
"An Act relating to fees for certain uses of state water and the
accounting and appropriation of those fees; relating to
authorizations for the temporary use of state water; making
other amendments to the Alaska Water Use Act; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 22
"An Act relating to certain passenger vessels operating in the
marine waters of the state; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSSSHB 22(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 144
"An Act requiring nonresident hunters to be accompanied when
hunting moose; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 232
"An Act permitting state residents to purchase remote
recreational cabin sites."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 26
SHORT TITLE:STELLER SEA LION RESEARCH TEAM TO ALASKA
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STEVENS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/03/01 0828 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/03/01 0828 (H) RES
04/20/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 121
SHORT TITLE:RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASING ACT
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/27/01 0520 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/27/01 0521 (S) RES, FIN
03/16/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/16/01 (S) Heard & Held
03/16/01 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/30/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/30/01 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/02/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/02/01 (S) Moved CS(RES) Out of
Committee
04/02/01 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/03/01 0920 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP SAME TITLE
04/03/01 0920 (S) DP: TORGERSON, TAYLOR,
PEARCE, KELLY
04/03/01 0920 (S) FN1: ZERO(DNR)
04/09/01 1032 (S) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED REFERRED
TO RULES
04/09/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/09/01 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/10/01 1047 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/10/01
04/10/01 1049 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/10/01 1049 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/10/01 1049 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/10/01 1049 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
121(RES)
04/10/01 1049 (S) PASSED Y17 N3
04/10/01 1050 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
04/10/01 1053 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/10/01 1053 (S) VERSION: CSSB 121(RES)
04/10/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
04/10/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/11/01 0949 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/11/01 0949 (H) O&G, RES
04/18/01 (H) O&G AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/18/01 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/18/01 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
04/19/01 1067 (H) O&G RPT 4DP
04/19/01 1067 (H) DP: KOHRING, DYSON, CHENAULT,
FATE
04/19/01 1067 (H) FN1: ZERO(DNR)
04/20/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 158
SHORT TITLE:REPORT:STATE PARTICIPATE IN NAT GAS PIPE.
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/23/01 0785 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/23/01 0785 (S) RES, FIN
03/28/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/28/01 (S) Moved CS(RES) Out of
Committee
03/28/01 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/29/01 0855 (S) RES RPT CS 6DP 1NR SAME TITLE
03/29/01 0856 (S) DP: TORGERSON, TAYLOR,
HALFORD, PEARCE,
03/29/01 0856 (S) KELLY, ELTON; NR: LINCOLN
03/29/01 0856 (S) FN1: (REV)
04/06/01 0974 (S) FIN RPT CS(RES) 6DP 3NR
04/06/01 0974 (S) DP: DONLEY, KELLY, AUSTERMAN,
OLSON,
04/06/01 0974 (S) LEMAN, WILKEN; NR: GREEN,
HOFFMAN,
04/06/01 0974 (S) WARD
04/06/01 0974 (S) FN1: (REV)
04/06/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/06/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(FIN)
04/09/01 1013 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/9/01
04/09/01 1017 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/09/01 1017 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/09/01 1018 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED BY WARD
04/09/01 1018 (S) AM TO AM 1 UNANIMOUS CONSENT
04/09/01 1018 (S) AM NO 1 AS AMENDED ADOPTED
Y12 N8
04/09/01 1019 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/09/01 1019 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
158(RES) AM
04/09/01 1019 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
04/09/01 1019 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
04/09/01 1032 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/09/01 1032 (S) VERSION: CSSB 158(RES) AM
04/09/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
04/09/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/10/01 0917 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/10/01 0917 (H) O&G, RES, FIN
04/18/01 (H) O&G AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/18/01 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 158(O&G) Out
of Committee
04/18/01 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
04/19/01 1067 (H) O&G RPT HCS(O&G) 4DP 1AM
04/19/01 1067 (H) DP: DYSON, CHENAULT, GUESS,
FATE;
04/19/01 1067 (H) AM: KOHRING
04/19/01 1068 (H) FN1: (REV)
04/20/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 185
SHORT TITLE:ALASKA WATER USE ACT & FEES
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/14/01 0591 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/14/01 0591 (H) RES, FIN
03/14/01 0591 (H) FN1: (DNR)
03/14/01 0591 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/20/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 22
SHORT TITLE:MARINE PASSENGER VESSELS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KERTTULA
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0029 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/29/00
01/08/01 0029 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/08/01 0030 (H) TRA, RES, FIN
02/23/01 0410 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
02/23/01 0410 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/23/01 0410 (H) TRA, RES, FIN
04/19/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/19/01 (H) Moved CSSSHB 22(TRA) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(TRA)
04/19/01 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/20/01 1083 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) NT 3DP 1NR
1AM
04/20/01 1084 (H) DP: KOOKESH, KAPSNER, SCALZI;
04/20/01 1084 (H) NR: MASEK; AM: KOHRING
04/20/01 1084 (H) FN1: (DEC)
04/20/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 144
SHORT TITLE:GUIDES FOR NONRESIDENT MOOSE HUNTERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)LANCASTER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/23/01 0416 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/23/01 0416 (H) RES
02/23/01 0416 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
04/06/01 0889 (H) COSPONSOR REMOVED: CHENAULT
04/20/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff
to Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 516
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of the sponsor of SB 121.
JAMES EASON, Lobbyist
for Foothills Pipe Lines, Ltd.
8611 Leeper Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Encouraged the committee to move SB 121.
SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 427
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the Senate Resources
Committee, the sponsor of SB 158.
MARILYN CROCKETT, Deputy Director
Alaska Oil and Gas Association
121 W. Fireweed Number 207
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Encouraged the committee to adopt a
committee substitute similar to CSSB 139[(FIN)].
BOB LOEFFLER, Director
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources
550 W 7th Avenue, Suite 1070
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3579
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 185 and Version C.
TOM CRAFFORD
Alaska Miners Association
3000 Princeton Way
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 185 with the
inclusion of the amendments that were included in CSSB 139.
BOB STILES, President
Resource Development Council
711 H Street, Suite 600
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified to RDC's strong support of HB 185
with the additions made in the amendment [to SB 139].
ROBERT REGES, Member
Cruise Control, Inc.
226 Saint Ann's Avenue
Douglas, Alaska 99824
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with CSSSHB 22(TRA).
RANDY RAY
U.S. Cruise Ship Association
P.O. Box 979
Mercer Island, Washington 98040
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed his interest in seeing this bill
[CSSSHB 22(TRA)] move forward.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 144.
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR
(No address provided.)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of [CSHB 144, Version
J].
CLARK WHITNEY
43735 Sports Lake Road
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee's support of HB 144.
DICK BISHOP
Alaska Outdoor Council
1555 Gus's Grind
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 144.
GREG ROCZICKA
Orutsararmuit Native Council;
Chair, Board of Game
PO Box 513
Bethel, Alaska 99559
POSITION STATEMENT: As an ONC representative, he spoke in
support of HB 144. As a Board of Game representative, he
informed the committee that the board hadn't taken a position on
HB 144.
ALEX TARNAI, Trapper
Nowitna Wildlife Refuge
(No address provided.)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 144.
TOM JOHNSON
High Adventure Air
PO Box 486
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 144.
NEIL WEBSTER
Beardown Adventures
11044 Buscna Circle
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
POSITION STATEMENT: Requested that HB 144 be moved from
committee today.
DAVID HAEG, Director
Alaska's Western Wildlife Alliance
PO Box 123
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 144.
KELVIN GURNEY
PO Box 443
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 144 as amended.
JOE KLUTSCH, Master Guide
Katmai Guide Service
PO Box 313
King Salmon, Alaska 99613
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 144.
GEORGE SIAVELIS
Aniak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 144.
JIMMY HURLEY
Ekwok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 144.
MATT ROBUS, Deputy Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 144.
WAYNE REGELIN, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided additional information.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-37, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR DREW SCALZI called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:50 p.m. Representatives Masek,
Scalzi, Fate, Green, Chenault, McGuire, Stevens, and Kerttula
were present at the call to order. Representative Kapsner
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HJR 26-STELLER SEA LION RESEARCH TEAM TO ALASKA
CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 26, Requesting the National Marine
Fisheries Service to relocate the Alaska Fisheries Science
Center Steller sea lion research team to Alaska.
[There was an unnecessary motion to adopt HJR 26 for discussion
purposes.]
Number 0112
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS reminded the committee that HJR 26 was
created as a response to another bill regarding the study of
Steller sea lions, in an effort to move the scientists to
Alaska, where the research is being conducted and where the
Steller sea lions live. He said there are facilities in Alaska
and space is available. He mentioned recent travel restrictions
placed on the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) staff.
Representative Stevens said he talked with NMFS people who have
indicated that they have been considering sending some of their
staff to Alaska.
Number 0239
CO-CHAIR MASEK referred to page 2, lines 12-13, of the joint
resolution and asked why the language was not made specific
regarding the location of the proposed facility in Alaska.
Number 0262
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS responded that the western "portion" of
the Steller seal lion [range] occurs from Yakutat to Dutch
Harbor, so rather than be too specific, the language was left
more general to let [NMFS] determine the best location.
Number 0318
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report HJR 26 [version 22-LS0841\A]
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HJR 26
was moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee. [Co-
Chair Scalzi turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Masek.]
SB 121-RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASING ACT
CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 121(RES), "An Act adding, for purposes of
the Alaska Right-of-Way Leasing Act, a definition of
'substantial change' as applied to an amended right-of-way lease
application; and providing for an effective date."
ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff to Senator Loren Leman, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that Senator Leman wanted to remove real
or potential road blocks to the commercialization of Alaska's
North Slope gas. She paraphrased the sponsor statement, which
reads as follows:
Senate Bill 121 provides a statutory definition of
"substantial change" as that term is used in AS
38.35.050(c). This section provides that "any
amendment to an application filed under this section
which constitutes a substantial change in the
application is subject to all provisions of this
chapter applying to an original application." The
statutes provide no guidance to applicants, the
Department of Natural Resources, or other interested
parties as to what is or is not a substantial change.
The difficulty with the language as it exists is that
any or all changes to an original pipeline right-of-
way lease application could be argued to be
substantial.
MS. KREITZER added that the concern surrounds what happens when
that decision is challenged in court and the court, by default,
makes the decision. She continued:
This legislation establishes that: a 10 percent net
increase in state acreage beyond what was in the
original application; using less effective
environmental or safety mitigation measures than
proposed in the original application; or, proposing a
fundamental change in the route as proposed in the
original application would be substantial enough to
require restarting the entire administrative process
for obtaining a right-of-way lease across state lands.
MS. KREITZER noted that the reason for the exceptions is the
difference between federal and state rights-of-way. She
explained that federal rights-of-way are 50 feet, plus the
amount of the improvement, which equals approximately 80 feet,
whereas, state rights-of-way range from 100 to 150 feet. She
said the state rights-of-way should not be included in the 10
percent net increase, because, essentially, the route of the
pipeline is not being changed, rather the leases are being
aligned. She continued with the sponsor statement:
This legislation will not foreclose on opportunities
for the public and affected agencies to review and
comment on subsequent amendments to initial lease
applications. It will, however, provide an increased
measure of certainty and will minimize unnecessary
challenges and delays in processing, approving and
issuing right-of-way leases.
Number 0590
JAMES EASON, Lobbyist, Foothills Pipe Lines, Ltd. (Foothills),
explained that Foothills is a company owned jointly by trans
Canada pipeline and West Coast Energy, which are the two largest
pipeline companies in Canada. He stated that Foothills is the
managing partner for the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
System (ANGTS), which, hopefully will be the system that brings
Alaska gas to the Lower 48 market. Mr. Eason said Foothills has
put most of its permits in place over the years, including the
federal right-of-way in Alaska, as well as rights-of-way across
Canada and the "pre-bill" system for parts of the Lower 48
states. He added that the "missing piece" of that is the state
right-of-way. He said [Foothills] has expended a considerable
amount of effort and money, since approximately 1984 to keep its
application for that right-of-way active. Furthermore,
[Foothills] has recently begun the process of finishing the
rights-of-way lease for the rest of the system.
MR. EASON stated that [Foothills] views [SB 121] as an important
piece of a necessary framework to assure that that permitting
takes place and does so in a way that is open to full public
review, while at the same time providing some valuable
protections. He stated [Foothill's] belief that [SB 121] is
important to any proponent for a gas pipeline that might be a
high profile project, which might invite litigation.
MR. EASON indicated that the problem, as described by Ms.
Kreitzer in previous testimony, is that the statutes - the
right-of-way leasing act - have contained a term, which has had
important implications for the act, since it was first adopted.
He continued:
That term, "substantial change," was never defined.
And as a practical matter, the Department of Natural
Resources has faced questions, involving what is or is
not a substantial change for the purposes of
retriggering all the provisions of the act on several
occasions, and they have successfully resolved those
issues without litigation.
Our concern, however, is that it's not the department
that ultimately makes the decision. If someone is
interested in delaying or blocking a project, it's
simply a matter of watching the project's permitting
unfold over a year and a half or two years, and if
there are any changes in the application, today or
tomorrow, by the applicant or by the state, it's
arguable that someone can raise a claim that those are
substantial changes.
The commissioner, we hope, would make the same types
of decisions they always have - they've been decisions
we think are right. But, at the same time, if they
are challenged in court, it's not the commissioner's
decision that matters, it's be the court's decision.
And so, this bill is very important, because it
provides the legislature the opportunity to provide
some common sense guidelines that will help guide, not
only the applicants, but the state in the adjudication
of permits. And it will also help the public to
understand how the permits are going to be ...
adjudicated. ... We would encourage you to consider
the bill favorably and move it out of committee.
Number 0761
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN described the following possible scenario:
A pipeline is routed toward "community A" and deviated around
it. Then, for whatever reason, "they" want to go closer or
impact "community A" more. The impact would be less than 10
percent deviation from the original permit. Representative
Green asked Mr. Eason, "would that, in your estimation .. or
would this definition cover that, as far as a 'significant
change?'"
MR. EASON responded that there were two events at issue. If
there was a 10 percent or above increase in acreage involved,
that would automatically be considered a substantial change. In
that case "you" would go through all the provisions of the
chapter again. Regarding the routing itself, Mr. Eason referred
to page 2, lines 3 and 4, which read:
(C) a fundamental change in the general
route as set out in the original application;
He said "we" struggled and worked with numerous people to
develop language that would "capture the sense of the magnitude
of the change, which should trigger substantial change." He
stated that everyone realizes that there will be changes in the
alignment of a pipeline from the time it's applied for, until
it's actually in place. However, those changes would generally
be technical in nature, such as having to change the routing of
a pipeline for engineering, environmental, political, or social
reasons, for example.
MR.EASON explained that "you" have to maintain the flexibility
to respond to the wishes of the public, as well as to the
critical habitat or subsistence issues of the agencies, of which
"you" may be unaware when you make the application. As the two
or more years pass, while [the application] is under review
those issues will become known and "you" will need the
flexibility to rearrange the [pipeline] route to accommodate
that. He described a clear-cut situation in which everyone
would believe a substantial change had occurred: when someone
applies [for a permit] to [build a pipeline] from Prudhoe Bay to
Valdez, but a year and a half later says, "I'm going to go to
the Lower 48, instead." He mentioned finding the middle ground;
accommodate engineering, ground effects, or environmental
issues, while providing certainty that a company won't try to
gain pipelines by suggesting one route and then changing it.
Number 0929
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that his concern was of a more
subtle nature. He restated his example to describe a situation
in which a pipeline was originally routed in one direction.
However, a concern develops during involvement in the process
and people realize "this is a habitat, or it's bad soil," for
example. Therefore, it becomes necessary to change a route.
There would be far less than 10 percent change in acreage, but
it could have a significant impact. He asked if there was
language somewhere else in statute that would cover that
example.
Number 0975
MR. EASON responded as follows:
My belief is that this purposely would not accommodate
that; it would not consider that a substantial change
for the purposes of retriggering all of the provisions
of the chapter. But there's a distinction that I
think [is] important: It doesn't mean that that
change won't be publicly .. that people will not
receive notification of it, or that the agencies in
the public won't have an opportunity to influence that
change. But, there's a difference under the statutes
and the procedures, between keeping everyone informed
of what changes have to happen, and why, and letting
people participate in that decision. And taking the
step as is required now, if there's a dispute, of
going back and ... literally retriggering all the
provisions, which means go back and refile the
application, and again, all ... the procedural parts
of the chapter. And so, ... there is that tension.
... I think it's more in people's way they view what
substantial change does for ... an application.
Number 1030
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said:
I appreciate that. ... The reason I ask is that this,
in your estimation, either word-wise or intent-wise,
is not an effort to avoid this little community, or
this little thing, it just doesn't trigger the whole
two-or three-thousand miles of pipeline.
MR. EASON answered correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this kind of modification or
description has been used anywhere else.
MR. EASON noted that he hasn't researced that question.
However, he doubted that this type modification or description
has been used elsewhere because he understood the state's right-
of-way leasing act to be modeled after the federal right-of-way
leasing act; therefore, he expected this kind of uncertainty to
be embodied in both statutes. The issue is whether anyone has
challenged it and tried to use it as a tool to force delay, he
said.
Number 1085
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that Bill Britt, Pipeline Coordinator,
DNR, and Carol Carroll, Director, Division of Support Services,
DNR, were available by teleconference and in person,
respectively.
Number 1098
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to page 2, [line 3] of the bill
and asked Mr. Eason for his interpretation of the intent of the
language, "a fundamental change in the general route".
Number 1126
MR. EASON replied that it would encompass a change between
origin and destination. It would not include the changes along
the route that were proposed to accommodate the routine
eventualities relating to environmental reasons or public and
agency reasons.
Number 1185
MS. KREITZER provided the committee with information regarding
the different sizes of federal and state pipeline rights-of-way,
which could be viewed as a substantial change. The information
also noted where "substantial" is defined elsewhere in Alaska
statute.
Number 1237
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report CSSB 121(RES), [version 22-
LS0477\L] out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection,
CSSB 121(RES) was moved out of the House Resources Standing
Committee.
SB 158-REPORT:STATE PARTICIPATE IN NAT GAS PIPE.
Number 1260
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 158(RES) am, "An Act directing the
commissioner of revenue to prepare a report to the legislature
relating to the state's participation in owning or financing a
gas pipeline project; and providing for an effective date."
After much discussion, it was determined that HCS CSSB 158(O&G),
version 22-LS0744\O, was before the committee.
Number 1407
SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON, Alaska State Legislature, testified on
behalf of the Senate Resources Committee, the sponsor of SB 158.
Senator Torgerson pointed out that there has been much
discussion as to whether "we" should take ownership interest in
a pipeline. This legislation establishes the parameters for a
study in order to determine whether the aforementioned is
appropriate or not. The legislation also [requires] review of
whether the state should participate in financing the project,
and if so, in what capacity. Furthermore, the legislation
requests that the Department of Revenue review the risks to the
state when taking ownership. On page 3, beginning on line 2, is
language that specifies that the department shall contract with
a qualified person or firm. Since the desire is to do this in a
timely manner, procurement under AS 36.30 is impracticable. The
legislation requires that the contractor or its representative
meet with the chairs of the "committees that have legislative
jurisdiction over natural resources". Furthermore, it is
stipulated that [the legislature] should have access to all the
data that is collected. Senator Torgerson pointed out that the
legislation specifies that the report shall be submitted to the
legislature no later than January 31, 2002.
SENATOR TORGERSON pointed out that the House Special Committee
on Oil and Gas (HO&G) deleted the reference to standing
committee so that it, as a special committee dealing with
natural resources, could be included in this process. There was
also an amendment on the Senate floor, which added language
requesting a report that would study the possibility of natural
gas distribution within the state, by additional pipeline
facilities connected to population centers of the state. That
language was taken out because the fiscal note went from
$210,000 to approximately $500,000. Since that floor language
dealt with an engineering question and the bill is a financing
bill, the language was deleted. Therefore, the successful bid
will first have to determine the location of the population
centers and then make a determination regarding the size of the
pipe and its cost to be laid.
Number 1597
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN provided the committee with the following
amendment:
Page 3, line 9, following "chair the":
Insert "Alaska Legislative Council and the"
He explained that the chair of the Legislative Council would be
added to those people who will be informed by this study because
Legislative Council will be conducting a study during the
interim.
SENATOR TORGERSON related his first reaction that with that
amendment there would be too many bosses. Although he
understood that Representative Green wants a copy of the report,
he pointed out that the legislation is referring to the firm
actually meeting with the committee chairs and providing
progress reports.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out much is being done now in
regard to the legislature being prepared when the operators
provide [the legislature] with their analysis of the gas
pipeline. Legislative Council wants to be prepared and "have
equal horsepower to guide us in what we think is best for the
state," he said. Representative Green expressed the need "for
continuity of review."
Number 1745
SENATOR TORGERSON said that he believes that the [House and
Senate] Resources Committees will have more meetings on gas line
issues than Legislative Council. He expressed the need to make
the determination as to whether Legislative Council is going to
take the lead on gas line issues so that there isn't duplication
of effort. Senator Torgerson remarked that he hadn't envisioned
Legislative Council taking the lead with natural gas issues.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN contended that this [amendment] in no way
attempts [to place Legislative Council] in the lead. He pointed
out that during the interim unforeseen issues will arise. Those
issues will likely require expertise that isn't available in the
legislature or the state. Legislative Council has its own
budget and if necessary, it could pay to secure the necessary
legal, economic, and engineering experts.
SENATOR TORGERSON remarked that although he believes everyone
should obtain copies of the report, he wasn't sure how many
people should meet with the contractor. Therefore, he thought
Representative Green's language may be more appropriate on page
3, subsection (3), which discusses progress reports.
Number 1884
REPRESENTATIVE FATE inquired as to how the studies would be
done. He asked if the study embodied in SB 158 and the study by
Legislative Council would be parallel studies.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained that he envisions Legislative
Council contracting with unaffiliated experts as it did on the
Joint Committee on Mergers. This is intended to ensure there is
an unbiased view of the situation or issue. He recalled that
when Legislative Council contracted with unaffiliated experts
during the merger situation, significantly different conclusions
were reached [by the unaffiliated experts and the task force].
Although he doubted that would be the case with this issue, he
wanted to be sure that the power to do what is right for the
state is available. Representative Green clarified that he
wasn't saying that there should be additional bosses.
SENATOR TORGERSON agreed that there may be some studies that one
might want to do. However, somewhere during the process it will
have to be determined who is hiring for what in order to avoid
duplication. He related his view that this looks like a
duplicate effort. However, he wasn't sure the amendment hurts
anything. He noted that everyone is welcome at these meetings,
which will be noticed as are all other meetings.
Number 2026
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that this legislation directs the
commissioner of the Department of Revenue, who is chosen by the
governor, to prepare this report. He recalled that when this
was done before, the legislature didn't become [involved] in the
[details] of what was going on and that is what he wanted to
avoid. Representative Green asked, "Even though the chairs are
kept abreast, will they know that the commissioner's review has
gone into the depths that I feel are necessary? They don't
necessarily have the horsepower on their own right to do that,
whereas the Leg Council does."
SENATOR TORGERSON pointed out that the amendment is speaking to
the contractor not to the commissioner.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN related his belief that if the amendment
was put in paragraph (3), then a report from the commissioner
may be different if all Legislative Council received was a
progress report and had no input on it.
CO-CHAIR MASEK related her belief that the language on page 3,
paragraph (2), seems to cover Representative Green's issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that he is making an analogy to
the group that met regarding the merger. He explained:
We thought we were probably knowledgeable enough on
our right that we would have been able to understand,
either object, agree, disagree, whatever. At least I
found and I would say that my, at that time, cohort on
the committee found that ... it's like studying a book
of medicine and then going to a surgeon. That people
that are experts in ... those three fields
specifically, you need them working for you not
working for someone else and reporting to you. There
is a significant difference; that's the problem with
just getting a report or ... progress reports.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN specified that Legislative Council's
involvement would not supersede anything that this group of
people would do. Representative Green reiterated that he is
merely suggesting that Legislative Council be advised of what's
going on as it happens because it may help uncover something
that "we" want to know. He said that he wanted to prevent
something not being uncovered.
CO-CHAIR MASEK said that she felt that the merger issue was a
different issue.
Number 2218
SENATOR TORGERSON related his understanding of Representative
Green's concern that if, during the process, the legislature
finds that it is receiving faulty information because the
contractor is working for the Department of Revenue rather than
the legislature, the legislature may have to do its own report.
Therefore, he further understood that Representative Green would
be more up to speed on the issue or could look "through that" as
the report is being reviewed if he was one of the people that
received the report.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed and added, "And ... had the
horsepower to do it."
SENATOR TORGERSON pointed out that Legislative Council always
has the horsepower to do it. Again, Senator Torgerson remarked
that he wasn't sure that Representative Green's amendment hurt
anything. However, he interpreted the amendment to say that he
couldn't do his job and thus has to have Legislative Council
look over him. On the other hand, Senator Torgerson commented
that everyone should be involved in the process, to which he
didn't object.
CO-CHAIR MASEK said that every legislator has the ability and
right to participate in ongoing state issues. Although she
acknowledged the need for legislators to be involved with this
issue, she wasn't sure how this amendment fit.
SENATOR TORGERSON reiterated that the amendment doesn't seem to
hurt the bill. Furthermore, he noted that he sits on
Legislative Council and he or another member of one of the
Resources Committees could be designated [as a representative of
Legislative Council]. Although he contended that the amendment
would create some complication, he said that he didn't object to
its addition into the bill.
Number 2330
REPRESENTATIVE FATE pointed out that SB 158 has one more
committee of referral. Therefore, if the amendment was moved
[and adopted], then it would allow Senator Torgerson and the
Senate Resources Committee time to review this.
SENATOR TORGERSON agreed that he could then make any objections
in the next committee of referral, the House Finance Committee.
CO-CHAIR MASEK noted that she had a bit of a problem with the
amendment because it seems to cause additional time and effort
to gather people for meetings.
TAPE 01-37, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN posed a situation in which the two co-
chairs and two chairs didn't like the direction of the report.
He asked what Senator Torgerson would do in such a situation.
SENATOR TORGERSON remarked that he didn't know what the data
would be. He highlighted the fact that in the past, the problem
has been that [the legislature] hasn't had the data. Therefore,
the bill requires [the committees] to meet and review the data
that is building the report. He stressed that the data will be
available throughout the process, and furthermore there will be
periodic meetings with the contractor.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that the data will be presented
by a contractor who is selected by the commissioner as opposed
to a contractor selected by the legislature.
SENATOR TORGERSON interjected, "Well, lets vote the bill down
and do it all through Leg. Council ... if we want to have our
own contractor."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "That's not the point." He withdrew
his amendment and said, "I think we're putting our head in [the]
sand by not doing something like this."
Number 2278
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report HCS CSSB 158(O&G) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 158(O&G) was
reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
HB 185-ALASKA WATER USE ACT & FEES
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 185, "An Act relating to fees for certain uses
of state water and the accounting and appropriation of those
fees; relating to authorizations for the temporary use of state
water; making other amendments to the Alaska Water Use Act; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 2189
MARILYN CROCKETT, Deputy Director, Alaska Oil and Gas
Association (AOGA), testified via teleconference. She informed
the committee that she has faxed a letter of support to Co-
Chairs Masek and Scalzi. She specified that AOGA supports CSSB
139, which was adopted by the Senate Finance Committee. She
informed the committee that AOGA encourages the House Resources
Standing Committee to adopt a similar substitute [for HB 185],
which she understood may be considered today.
Number 2161
BOB LOEFFLER, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), related his understanding
that the committee would be considering a committee substitute
(CS) that reflects the changes made [to SB 139, the companion to
HB 185,] in the Senate Resources Committee. Therefore, he asked
if he should speak to that version.
CO-CHAIR MASEK said that Mr. Loeffler could speak to Version A,
the original bill.
MR. LOEFFLER explained that the constitution and the Alaska
Water Use [Act] requires one to obtain a temporary water right
or water use authorization before withdrawing a significant
amount of water from the ground, that is from a stream or lake.
However, the program has received significant funding cuts over
the years and "quite frankly, this program is broken," he said.
The staff of this program has decreased from 39 staff in the
early 1980s to a staff of four, one of which is a section chief.
The result of this lack of staff is a backlog. Mr. Loeffler
informed the committee that approximately 250 water right
applications are received each year as well as about 150
temporary water use permits. He explained that the program is
able to keep up with the [temporary] water use permits, but only
able to process 100 of the 250 water right applications.
Therefore, there is a backlog of 600 applications as well as
3,000 other actions.
MR. LOEFFLER explained the consequences of the backlog. He
said, "While DNR processes state interest applications right
away, most public and industries have a two to three year delay
before getting a permit to withdraw water." He related the
situation of a farmer in the Mat-Su who is considering
purchasing a significant amount of (indisc.) [irrigation system]
because the bank will not give him a loan until he has the water
rights. The farmer was told that it would be 2-3 years before
he received his water right. Mr. Loeffler said that farmer has
a right to be angry because "a delay of two to three years is
not the kind of service that our industries desire and it's not
the kind of service Alaskans deserve."
MR. LOEFFLER informed the committee that although single family
dwellings don't require a water right, many want it,
particularly in areas that are short of water. Mr. Loeffler
said, "We're telling people, at our current budget level, that
we'll never get to them, ever, because we're developing a
backlog faster than we're able to process it." On the North
Slope this year, staff took some shortcuts and has been the
subject of many lawsuits. Consequently, industries are
vulnerable, the environment is less protected and people don't
have the necessary permits.
MR. LOEFFLER then turned to the three-part solution, of which HB
185 is one part. The first part of the solution is in
[recognizing] that "we" can't pretend to do work as if it were
the early 1980s nor can [the program] pretend to do the
procedures as if there were 39 people to process them.
Therefore, within the next two weeks he expected that there
would be regulations that would significantly streamline the
process. The second part of the solution is the need for more
money. He pointed out that even with a streamlined process,
more money is necessary. Mr. Loeffler expressed his
appreciation that the House and Senate operating budget includes
$300,000 additional funds for this program. He related his
understanding that some Finance members expect that the $300,000
will be a one-time appropriation and that DNR will make up [the
backlog] by charging fees. This is where the bill, the [third
part of the solution] comes in.
Number 1983
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to adopt CSHB 185 [Version 22-
GH1087\C, Luckhaupt, 4/18/01] as the working document before the
committee. There being no objection, Version C was before the
committee.
MR. LOEFFLER continued with the two purposes of the bill.
First, the fee methodology places limitations on what DNR can
charge. The changes [to SB 139] in the Senate Resources
Committee were done to ensure that the fees would not be raised
too high. Mr. Loeffler noted that this bill utilizes a fees
methodology pioneered by the legislature last year. This fees
methodology is commonly referred to as the DEC fees bill, which
"limits what DNR can charge to the reasonable direct costs of
processing an application." Therefore, one would be charged
just what it cost to do the application plus a $50 annual fee
that was established years ago. Those two charges will allow
new applications to process a typical new water right within 60
days and a typical temporary water use application within 15
days. Furthermore, those fees would allow the backlog to be
completed in four to five years.
MR. LOEFFLER then turned to the second purpose of the bill,
which deals with temporary water use permits. On the North
Slope this year, "we" were the subject of a variety of suits.
This was, in part, because the temporary water use permits are
implied by statute but are really created by regulation. This
bill provides explicit statutory authorization for the temporary
water use permit program in the way that it has operated for the
past 20 years.
MR. LOEFFLER, in response to Representative Kerttula, suspected
that the lawsuits were brought on the grounds that [the
department] was not adequately protecting the environmental
resources of the North Slope. However, Mr. Loeffler related his
belief otherwise. In further response to Representative
Kerttula, Mr. Loeffler informed the committee that [the
department] was, in part, sued because public notice was not
provided on certain temporary water use permits. The judge
remanded the suit back to DNR, where he believes it remains
today. Mr. Loeffler said, "I believe in the expectation that on
large, temporary water use permits we would, in his remand,
provide public notice of those permits. That's something I
don't believe is necessary." He offered to explain his belief.
MR. LOEFFLER related his belief that [the department] has done a
good job in protecting the public resources of the North Slope.
He explained that things that are property rights require public
notice and thus water rights, a property right, require public
notice. However, things that are revocable permits, temporary
water use permits, aren't required to have public notice. In
general, the coastal districts on the North Slope have the
opportunity to request public notice, although it isn't
required. That is done through the "ABC" list. However, no
coastal district in the state, through the "ABC" list, has
required the department to do public notice. Therefore, "the
coastal districts have come to the conclusion, then, that there
is not significant potential for effects on coastal resources,"
he surmised. He said, "DNR is not obligated to do it and, I
believe is not required to do it." Furthermore, most of these
temporary water use permits are construction permits. He
explained that temporary water use permits are used in the
winter for ice roads and in the summer for the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF). Frequently, the
call will be from DOT&PF saying that they are out of water to
mix cement. After [DNR] consults with the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G), then the permit can be done quickly. Mr.
Loeffler related his belief that because these are construction
permits, the cost of delay to Alaska's industries could be high
and "I believe there is limited, if any, environmental benefit."
Number 1738
REPRESENTATIVE FATE turned to the instances in which lakes have
reverted from federal to state [control]. He posed a situation
in which a weir is in a lake that changes from federal to state
control. When under state control it is determined that the
weir is no longer in use. In such a situation, do the permits
to take that weir out have to be obtained?
MR. LOEFFLER answered yes, if the water is going to be used for
another purpose such as drinking.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that the CS changes the fiscal
note. However, the first part of the fiscal note analysis is
the same while there is a significant difference in the program
receipts and the general fund. Therefore, he requested an
explanation.
MR. LOEFFLER explained that the original fiscal note expected a
water use fee, which would be charged to the owners of current
water rights. That fee was to fund the entire fund. However,
the CS provides that people will only be charged for the
services provided and thus people can't be charged for the
backlog. Therefore, general funds are necessary to attack the
backlog. So, the current fiscal note has no general funds in
FY02 and thus there is no amount in the operating budget.
However, in FY04, FY05, and FY06 the only additional general
funds, $115.5, are designed to attack the backlog. In FY07 that
is no longer necessary because the backlog will have been
eliminated. He noted that FY03 is a transition year.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN related his understanding that in the
original fiscal note, FY02 and FY03 would have been the backlog
while the current fiscal note stretches the backlog over a
longer period.
MR. LOEFFLER didn't agree with Representative Green's
understanding and pointed out that the backlog was going to take
four or five years in the original fiscal note. Mr. Loeffler
explained, "It required $300,000 in FY03, in FY02. That same
amount would be here in FY02, except we took it out because it's
in the operating budget. In FY03 we had a $100,000 because in
that scheme of charging, that's what we thought we needed to --
we wouldn't get all the income ready in one year. In the
current scheme of charging, we think we need $215,000 next
year." Mr. Loeffler clarified that the previous version of [the
bill and fiscal note] envisioned the department being able to
charge things, an annual water right fee, that it can't [under
Version C]. Therefore, there is the need for more general
funds.
Number 1469
TOM CRAFFORD, Alaska Miners Association (AMA), testified via
teleconference. Mr. Crafford expressed support for HB 185 with
the inclusion of the amendments that were included in CSSB 139.
He explained that the AMA recognizes the need to provide
adequate and reliable funding for water rights and permitting
functions with DNR. Furthermore, AMA believes that the adoption
of the approach of the DEC fees bill is an appropriate means to
achieve this.
Number 1392
BOB STILES, President, Resource Development Council (RDC),
testified via teleconference. Mr. Stiles announced RDC's strong
support of HB 185 with the additions made in the amendment [to
SB 139]. The council has worked closely with DNR on the
original version of the bill and developed a charging scheme.
Mr. Stiles noted that RDC is supportive of the issues addressed
in HB 185, particularly addressing the backlog.
CO-CHAIR MASEK directed attention to page 5, lines 8 and 9,
subsection (e), and requested that Mr. Loeffler discuss the
statute, AS 46.15.080, mentioned in that subsection.
Number 1256
MR. LOEFFLER explained that the AS .080 is the best interest
criteria used to grant a property right that requires a finding
and a specific determination. The department wants to ensure
that the structure and finding dosn't [necessitate] come to
temporary water use permits. He clarified:
While we want to protect fish and wildlife, ... public
health, and any public interest, we don't want to have
to do a particular appealable finding and have the
court require us for temporary water use permits ....
But we want to make it very clear that they're not a
property right, they don't have the procedures that
are required of disposing of a property right.
Therefore, two things were added in the Senate Resources
Committee in order to address AS .080. That committee added the
last part of subsection (f), which ensures that the department
will impose reasonable conditions or limitations to protect fish
and wildlife habitat, public health, or other public interests.
Furthermore, [the Senate Resources Committee's amendment]
ensured that the department would consult with ADF&G and DEC.
CO-CHAIR MASEK turned to the list of things that a person would
have to do in order to obtain a permit.
MR. LOEFFLER explained that when the department grants a permit,
there is review by DNR, ADF&G, and DEC - if they're interested -
in order to determine that this [permit] isn't going to harm
fish and wildlife and public health. Rather than writing a
separate finding, the permit is issued. However, the permit is
appealable.
CO-CHAIR MASEK related her belief that that's weakening the
provisions to protect the public.
MR. LOEFFLER pointed out that this is the way the statute as
well as the regulations have worked for 20 years. There hasn't
been a separate document explaining why the department is
issuing the permit for temporary permits; that has only been
done for disposable interests.
Number 1110
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether a coastal district
requesting greater notice and latitude in commenting would be
given such.
MR. LOEFFLER said that happens through the coastal zone process,
which he didn't thoroughly understand. He did say that the
department would certainly work with the coastal district.
CO-CHAIR MASEK inquired as to how small multiple-use wells would
be monitored or permitted under this bill.
MR. LOEFFLER remarked that typically the department doesn't
require a lot of monitoring. He explained that a community well
is a water right and thus isn't impacted by this statute, save
the fees portion. Therefore, the water right procedures would
be done as quickly as possible and a finding written. In
further response to Co-Chair Masek, Mr. Loeffler confirmed that
water rights are permanently attached to land titles and
transfer with the land. However, the owner could sever it, if
the owner wishes. Because this is a property right, the
department can't take [the water permit] away without just
compensation or loss.
CO-CHAIR MASEK inquired as to how much water use is exempt from
permits.
MR. LOEFFLER answered that under current regulations 500 gallons
a day for everyone and 1,500 gallons a day for residential use
is exempted.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked how cities will pay for water.
MR. LOEFFLER explained that currently once a water right is
obtained, a $50 fee is charged. He acknowledged that it isn't a
large charge.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if there is a large backlog of permits.
MR. LOEFFLER reiterated that for water rights, there is a
backlog of 600-700 applications. That is quite a bit when one
considers that the department does 100 a year. Furthermore, the
department has a backlog of 3,000 other things, which includes
transfers, amendments, extensions, et cetera. Mr. Loeffler
said, "I believe that backlog is an insult to our citizens and
our industries."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE inquired as to why there is such a backlog
in water rights permits.
MR. LOEFFLER reiterated that the department's funding has fallen
such that there are only about 3.5 staff and there is more work
than 3.5 people can do. He noted that two years ago there were
nine staff and in the early 1980s there was a staff of 39.
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that HB 185 would be held.
HB 22-MARINE PASSENGER VESSELS
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would
be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 22, "An Act relating to
certain passenger vessels operating in the marine waters of the
state; and providing for an effective date." [Before the
committee is CSSSHB 22(TRA).]
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA, testifying as the sponsor, explained
that SSHB 22 is a sampling, registering, and reporting
requirement for the cruise industry in Alaska. Under a
voluntary program last summer, the cruise industry took it upon
itself to perform water quality sampling of their discharges.
Those discharge samples had unexpected high fecal coliform
counts in the graywater, which is the water from the laundry and
showers. Consequently, the cruise industry has worked towards
meeting higher expectations. Representative Kerttula explained
that SSHB 22 establishes a process whereby companies will
[perform] sampling and the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) will be able to obtain the sampling.
Furthermore, this legislation will allow the state to mesh with
federal legislation that U.S. Senator Murkowski put in place
last year. She specified that a sponsor substitute (SS) was
introduced in order to mesh with U.S. Senator Murkowski's
legislation. The House Transportation Standing Committee worked
on a compromise with the industry and Representative Kerttula,
which resulted in the committee substitute (CS) that was
presented to the House Transportation Standing Committee
yesterday. Fundamentally, the CS remains a sampling,
registering, and reporting bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA informed the committee that she has two
amendments that she will be offering for the committee's
consideration. She announced that she would withdraw the
amendment labeled 22-LS0238\P.2, Lauterbach, 4/20/01, which
reads as follows:
Page 3, lines 9 - 16:
Delete all material.
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) Except as provided in (f) of this section, a
person may not discharge graywater from a large
passenger vessel into the marine waters of the state
that fails to meet the effluent standards for
graywater established by the Administrator of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency under
sec. 1407 of the federal cruise ship legislation. If
the Administrator has not adopted these federal
effluent standards by January 1, 2003, then,
beginning January 1, 2003, and ending when the
Administrator does adopt these federal effluent
standards, a person may not, except as provided in (f)
of this section, discharge graywater from a large
passenger vessel into the marine waters of the state
that has a fecal coliform bacterial count greater than
200 colonies per 100 milliliters or suspended solids
greater than 150 milligrams per liter."
She explained that although there were no performance standards
in SSHB 22, there are now a few performance standards in [AS
46.03].463 of the CS. For the record, Representative Kerttula
stated that she intends the performance standards to be the
floor and not the cap. She related her belief that the cruise
industry would probably surpass these performance standards
fairly soon.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA turned to Amendment 1 [22-LS0238\P.3,
Lauterbach, 4/20/01], which is merely a housekeeping measure
that the drafter feels appropriate. Amendment 1 reads as
follows:
Page 5, line 13:
Delete "and (d)"
Page 5, line 15:
Delete "(e) - (g)"
Insert "(d) - (f)"
Page 5, lines 22 - 30:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 5, line 31, through page 6, line 1:
Delete "other than a release covered by (c) of
this section"
Page 6, line 25:
Delete "(e)"
Insert "(d)"
Page 6, line 27:
Delete "(e)"
Insert "(d)"
Number 0619
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved that the committee adopt Amendment
1. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA turned to the final amendment [22-
LS0238\P.1, Lauterbach, 4/20/01], [Amendment 2] reads as
follows:
Page 8, line 16:
Delete "exemptions to"
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA characterized [Amendment 2] as a
substantive amendment because it addresses the fact that SSHB 22
grants DEC the authority to implement necessary regulations.
Although this legislation doesn't propose a large program and
there is a minimal fiscal note, DEC will still try to work out
exactly how the sampling will be done. Therefore, DEC does need
some authority. The language that came out of the House
Transportation Standing Committee is somewhat ambiguous because
it says "The department may adopt regulations that are necessary
for the implementation of exemptions". Therefore, the concern
is that the language may be misread to mean that it only applied
to the implementation of exemptions. Representative Kerttula
acknowledged that the industry, as well as herself, have only
had a short time to view CSSSHB 22(TRA). Although she wasn't
sure of their position on the CS, she believes that [everyone]
recognizes the need for reasonable regulations by [the state's]
agencies. She noted that this legislation does have another
committee of referral and thus the cruise industry will be able
to review the [CS] further and can voice concerns at that
committee.
There was discussion regarding which amendment was being
discussed.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if AS 46.03.460-46.03.490 describe the
exemptions, if any.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that the [regulations section]
would provide the department the authority to deal with the
statutes and implement anything necessary. Unless directly
stated in the statute, the department wouldn't have to require
the company to do it and thus, in that regard, there would be
exemptions and additions.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE expressed his discomfort in making
exemptions when he really isn't familiar with that particular
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that Amendment 2 would delete
the language "exemptions to" because that language could be
interpreted to mean that DEC can only implement exemptions to
the statutes. Normally, a statute is put in place and then the
agency determines how the sampling would be done.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE agreed with Representative Kerttula
regarding the possible interpretation of the "exemptions to"
language. She remarked, "In a sense, the bill means nothing if
you have no ability to implement it." Representative McGuire
suggested that Amendment 2 could be amended on page 8, line 16,
delete "to", insert "and the implementation of". She agreed
that Representative Fate has a good point in that the [original]
deletion [in Amendment 2] may, in some way, suggest that "we"
don't want those exemptions implemented as well.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she accepted that as a friendly
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE clarified that she would like her
amendment to Amendment 2 to be conceptual. Amendment 2, as
amended, reads as follows:
Page 8, line 16:
Delete "to"
Insert "and the implementation of"
CHAIR MASEK asked if there were any objections to Amendment 2
[as amended]. There being no objection, Amendment 2 [as
amended] was adopted.
TAPE 01-38, SIDE A
Number 0010
ROBERT REGES, Member, Cruise Control, Inc., explained that
Cruise Control, Inc., is a citizens group working to mitigate
the impacts of industrial tourism. Mr. Reges said that he has,
in the last 24 hours, reviewed CSSSHB 22(TRA) and thus he wanted
to address the following four points. First, Mr. Reges turned
to the issue of fees. Drawing on his statutory litigation
experience, Mr. Reges pointed out that the ability to charge
fees isn't necessarily assumed. Therefore, he requested the
inclusion of intent [language] or explicit language to that
effect. The explicit language, "including the assessment of
fees" would be inserted on page 8, line 16. He noted his
preference for including the explicit language.
MR. REGES moved on to his second point and directed attention to
page 7, line 28, which is the penalty section. He explained,
"Subsection (a) is designed to preclude operators from using
Alaska's court system if they have failed to register." Such
statutes tend to be narrowly construed because they work [with]
forfeiture. From his experience, he believes that, unless the
legislature is very specific, the judges will read that penalty
out of existence. Therefore, he suggested the following: page
7, line 28, after "claim", insert "crossclaim". He explained
that there are basically the following three types of claims: a
claim, a counterclaim, and a crossclaim.
MR. REGES continued with his third point of discussion, the
title and its notion of permits. He acknowledged that
initially, permits weren't part of this bill, but were in the
governor's proposed bill. Mr. Reges related his belief that the
current title doesn't allow for an open and thorough discussion
regarding whether a permitting regime might be the most
efficient way to implement "what it is we're trying to do here."
He pointed out that his industrial clients are often pleased to
have a specific permit for them because it can take their unique
needs into account. Furthermore, a specific permit would be an
excellent vehicle by which the department typically accesses
fees. He reiterated that the title doesn't leave room for
discussion regarding whether there should be a permitting regime
or not, which he finds regrettable. Therefore, he hoped that
the title could be loosened in order to allow such a discussion.
MR. REGES concluded with his fourth point regarding the deletion
of the monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping of air emissions
from CSSSHB 22(TRA). He recalled that the rationale for that
deletion was that air emissions are addressed under existing
law. He noted that he has worked extensively with air emission
laws. However, if air pollution from cruise ships is left to
fall under the existing statutes, there will be ambiguities
because these laws and regulations weren't written with these
sources of air pollution in mind. Therefore, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting under existing air emission laws
would wind up being done in court or under an executive fiat
under the existing authorities. For that reason, Mr. Reges
advocated that the very minimal air emission requirements
contained in SSHB 22 be reinserted. He specified that this
language appeared on page 2, lines 25-31, of SSHB 22. Mr. Reges
acknowledged that the cruise industry is concerned that self-
reporting would "lead to turning oneself in for violations."
However, Mr. Reges indicated the ability and his [preference]
for immunizing that kind of data [self-reported air emission
data] as is done with other self-audits. Mr. Reges explained
that this type of data would allow knowledge regarding what is
the best available control technology and who does and doesn't
break the standard. He recognized that operators are engaged in
a variety of efforts in order to reduce their emissions, but
there is no way to compare and contrast the success of those
efforts unless the monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping is
reinserted into the bill.
Number 0618
CO-CHAIR SCALZI addressed Mr. Reges' points on the fees and the
permitting title change. Co-Chair Scalzi asked if the expansion
of fees, included in [sub]section (a), would suffice so that the
title wouldn't have to be changed.
MR. REGES said that he was not an expert in regard to the
legislative permutations of the title.
Number 0689
RANDY RAY, U.S. Cruise Ship Association, testified via
teleconference. He informed the committee that the U.S. Cruise
Ship Association is compromised of the small U.S.-flagged cruise
ships. Mr. Ray noted that he had obtained the bill last night
and thus the association didn't have a definitive position yet.
However, he related the belief that the bill is moving in the
right direction and due to the short timeframe, he urged the
committee to keep the bill moving forward. He noted that the
[association] would work with the sponsor and the legislature
through the process.
CHAIR MASEK asked if there was anyone else who wished to
testify. There being no one, the public testimony portion was
closed and the committee discussion began.
Number 0779
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA remarked that she believes she is in
agreement with Mr. Reges' suggestion to include the word
"crossclaim" in the penalties section. Therefore,
Representative Kerttula moved that the committee adopt the
following conceptual amendment, Amendment 3:
Page 7, line 28, after "claim",
Insert "crossclaim"
REPRESENTATIVE FATE objected and asked if [Amendment 3] would
change the intent of that particular clause.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE related his understanding that [Amendment 3]
would add one more claim in order to eliminate any possibility
of any further litigation. Representative Fate withdrew his
objection.
There being no objection, conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA also indicated agreement with Mr. Reges
in regard to including the assessment of fees in the regulations
section on page 8, line 15. She pointed out that the fiscal
note was moved from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
Furthermore, she said, "We clearly envisioned DEC to be able to
assess a fee." Although in the past the industry has said they
have been willing to work with that, she wasn't sure because she
hasn't spoken with the industry on this particular matter.
Therefore, the record could reflect that intent or there could
be an explicit amendment. She left that decision to the
committee.
CHAIR MASEK pointed out that this bill has a House Finance
Committee referral and thus she believed that Representative
Kerttula could speak with the industry and the House Finance
Committee members on this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA turned to Mr. Reges' comments about the
permitting and the air emissions and said that she would do her
best to discuss those with the industry and the entire
legislature in order to resolve those.
Number 0988
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report CSSSHB 22(TRA) as amended
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSSHB
22(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing
Committee.
The committee took a brief at-ease from 3:45 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.
HB 144-GUIDES FOR NONRESIDENT MOOSE HUNTERS
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 144, "An Act requiring nonresident hunters to
be accompanied when hunting moose; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 1062
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to adopt CSHB 144 [Version 22-
LS0602\J, Utermohle, 3/21/01] as the working document before the
committee. There being no objection, Version J was before the
committee.
Number 1133
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER, Alaska State Legislature,
testified as the sponsor of HB 144. Representative Lancaster
informed the committee that early in the session he was
contacted by a constituent, who is a guide, regarding the
actions of the Board of Game. Working with the constituent and
the Alaska Professional Hunter's Association (APHA), HB 144 was
drafted. He informed the committee that he fully supported the
committee substitute (CS). Representative Lancaster said, "The
bill will assure that nonresident moose hunters are given the
assistance needed, by someone accountable for legal hunting and
proper care of game in the field during the time of hunting."
This legislation should increase the moose population, alleviate
the biological and conservation concern regarding moose
populations, and assure more stable subsistence allocation for
resident moose hunters. Furthermore, the bill will curtail the
increase of wanton waste and moose hunting violations committed
by unguided nonresident moose hunters while protecting the
economically viable state guide industry. Representative
Lancaster pointed out that the CS allows for the "buddy hunt,"
which means that one nonrelated person can hunt moose with a
resident.
Number 1224
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR testified via teleconference. He stressed that
he was speaking on his own behalf, although he informed the
committee that he is a big game hunting guide, owner of a meat
and fish processing facility in Fairbanks, and a member of the
State Board of Fisheries. Mr. Umphenour felt that this bill is
necessary. As a guide, he has seen how nonresident hunters have
increased such that drawing permits are now done. Mr. Umphenour
pointed out that the Board of Fish & Game can only manage by
methods and means. If so desired, nonresidents can be
restricted entirely, which just happened in game management unit
13.
MR. UMPHENOUR, as an owner of a meat processing facility, says
the biggest problem is nonresidents bringing in filthy moose
meat. Most registered guides, such as himself, hire the local
Native Alaskans. Furthermore, he only allows the hunter to take
one hind leg and the back strap home, which can be 150-200
pounds of meat. The rest of the meat is taken care of by
himself and his guides. The meat is aged for a couple of days
and then taken to the villages for distribution to the elderly
and single mothers.
MR. UMPHENOUR informed the committee that the biggest complaint
he hears from advisory board members throughout the state is
that transporters drop off their clients in easy drop-off sites
and thus they compete with the local subsistence users. Much
conflict over subsistence happens. Therefore, he felt that
[CSHB 144] would alleviate many of the problems. He concluded
by saying that this is a good bill.
Number 1378
CLARK WHITNEY testified via teleconference. Over his nearly 40-
years in Alaska, he has trapped, fished, and flown over most of
Alaska and thus he has a close association with the wildlife of
Alaska. He also informed the committee that he has served on
the local fish and game advisory board as well as (indisc.).
Mr. Whitney noted that he is most familiar and concerned with
game management units 15, 16, 9, 17, and 19. He pointed out
that there is very little calf recoupment due to predation. Mr.
Whitney urged the committee's support of HB 144 for the
following reasons. Firstly, the current administration has
eliminated practically all predator controls statewide.
Therefore, there has been widespread depletion, specifically of
moose and sheep. This fact has been recognized by the
legislature, the Board of Fish & Game, and the Native community.
Despite of efforts of these various groups, the governor has
refused to change the policy regarding these issues. Mr.
Whitney predicted that the governor will not change his stance
for the rest of his term. Furthermore, the aforementioned game
populations have been hamstrung within the Department of Game
due to their disagreement with the governor's agenda.
MR. WHITNEY acknowledged that many factors have contributed to
the decline of Alaska's game stocks, such as predation by bears
and wolves, winter kills, and illegal takes. Mr. Whitney
related his belief that much of the illegal takes can be
contributed to nonresident hunters who are allowed to hunt
without supervision. [This lack of supervision] results in the
killing of "sub-legal" animals. The aforementioned problem can
be eliminated through the implementation of HB 144.
Furthermore, HB 144 would alleviate conflicts with Native groups
and eliminate wanton waste. Although Mr. Whitney believes that
passing HB 144 will not solve the current crisis with depleted
stocks, he believes it is a step in the right direction. Mr.
Whitney urged the committee to expedite this bill and implement
it by 2002.
Number 1530
DICK BISHOP, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), informed the
committee that the AOC opposed HB 144. He noted that the
committee should have a letter from the AOC to that effect. The
basic problem, the shortage of resources, is not addressed by
the bill. In many cases, the shortage of resources is related
to the lack of effective management. Mr. Bishop related his
belief that it is clear that the Board of Game has the means to
address the difficulties. For example, in units 19A & B
nonresident hunters must draw permits and [thus the board] has
limited the numbers of nonresidents that can hunt in those areas
under that permit provision. The restriction is about at the
level of the harvest two years ago. He provided another example
in which nonresident hunting for black bear had grown too much
on Kuiu Island, which led the Board of Game to pass a regulation
that didn't allow any nonresident black bear hunting until the
population recovered. Therefore, the AOC didn't see the need to
pit guides against transporters. He indicated that this [bill]
has developed from a concern about hunters going out with
transporters; however, a high proportion of those are Alaskan
residents, not nonresidents.
MR. BISHOP turned to the recovery of moose populations and
pointed out that it is unlikely that the proposed restrictions
will have a significant impact. In most cases, residents or
nonresidents, hunters with guides or transporters, are looking
for male moose with a nice rack as well as the food. Therefore,
Mr. Bishop felt that [HB 144] is a measure that is not the
appropriate approach to address the problems. Furthermore, the
nonresident hunters make up a relatively small portion of the
moose hunting public, only 8 percent statewide. "Overall, we
don't think that it's an appropriate bill. It can't ... be
justified in the same basis as guides were originally justified
when that was put in the statute on the basis of the need to
ensure safety of nonAlaskans. So, we would like you to not pass
this bill," he said.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI mentioned the possibility of an amendment that
would insert language allowing the local game boards latitude to
address this problem on an area-by-area basis. He asked if Mr.
Bishop viewed that as a solution.
MR. BISHOP asked if he was referring to requiring guides on a
case-by-case basis.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI answered yes and specified that if the
legislation was such that the Board of Game statutes were
amended to allow the board to create this provision on an area-
by-area basis. He asked if the AOC would prefer something like
that over a statewide solution.
MR. BISHOP said that he didn't believe that addressed the basic
problem either. That is, if the problem is resource
conservation or rather providing adequate populations. He
pointed out that although this [bill] may alleviate some
concerns regarding people hunting properly, there are already
laws on the books that address that. Therefore, he didn't
believe Co-Chair Scalzi's suggestion would be that helpful.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked if Mr. Bishop is aware of any other
states that have laws such as HB 144.
MR. BISHOP said that he didn't recall. However, he did recall
seeing an article about increasing guides in New Mexico, which
created a backlash that led nonresident hunters to boycott
hunting in New Mexico. There was such a fuss, that the law was
repealed and all guide requirements were removed in a very short
time.
Number 1854
GREG ROCZICKA, Orutsararmuit Native Council (ONC), testified via
teleconference. He informed the committee that ONC is in
support of this bill. Although he felt that the uncontrolled
predator numbers is the primary factor in the decline of the
moose population, he also felt that the nonresident hunting
component is an increasingly significant impact that needs to be
addressed. The nonresident hunting numbers are rising and there
is no end in sight. In some areas, nonresident hunters
outnumber resident hunters by 5:1 and statewide nonresident
hunters outnumber resident hunters by 3:1. Earlier it was
mentioned that overall statewide [nonresident hunters are] only
6-8 percent [of those who hunt in Alaska]. However, if one
includes the game management units that contain the large urban
centers: 14, 15, and 20, then the percentage [of nonresident
hunters in Alaska] increases to 20 percent. Mr. Roczicka
identified the crux of this matter as the transporter industry
for which there is basically no control. "There is no onus of
responsibility," he said. He explained how transporters, who
bring in large numbers of hunters, have a larger impact than the
smaller numbers of hunters brought in by guides.
MR. ROCZICKA noted that he is also the Chair of the Board of
Game, which discussed this legislation as well. The board
didn't take a position on this legislation. The board's concern
is similar to that expressed by the AOC, that is that this
[legislation addresses] a small portion of a larger problem.
Mr. Roczicka urged the committee to review the board's
resolution 98-127, which requested that the legislature put the
Commercial Services Board back in place. He remarked that the
elimination of nonresident hunts and the guide industry is where
things are headed [without this legislation].
Number 2091
ALEX TARNAI, Trapper, Nowitna Wildlife Refuge, testified via
teleconference. He informed the committee that he has lived on
the Nowitna River for 25 years, the last ten of those years he
has had a guide license. Mr. Tarnai announced his support of
this bill. He discussed the increase in nonresident hunters in
his area and estimated that nonresident hunters in his area
outnumber resident hunters by 3:1 and 5:1 in some areas.
Furthermore, he felt that nonresident hunters are not qualified
to judge [the size of] moose. He related first hand situations
in which he saw illegal moose taken and not reported and taken
and left in the field. Also, the air service that brings the
hunters in has no responsibility. Therefore, there is room for
violations. In response to an earlier question, Mr. Tarnai
informed the committee that Wyoming has a law that requires a
nonresident hunter to be guided by a state certified guide when
in a wilderness area.
CO-CHAIR MASEK inquired as to where Mr. Tarnai obtained the
numbers he used in his testimony.
MR. TARNAI clarified that the numbers come from his personal
observation as well as the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in
Galena, which has a check station at the mouth of the Nowitna
River. He noted that he kept a record of how many hunters went
up by boat. However, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service at the
Nowitna Wildlife Refuge doesn't have any record regarding how
many hunters are flying into the area. He specified that he was
referring to the nonresident hunters. Mr. Tarnai added that he
spoke with several of the hunters and found that hunts in the
Nowitna Wildlife Refuge were being sold as a package for $3,500,
which included airfare.
Number 2313
TOM JOHNSON, High Adventure Air, testified via teleconference.
He noted that the sponsor of HB 144 and many members of the
House and Senate Resources Committees should have a letter from
High Adventure Air that details why they are in opposition to HB
144.
Number 2374
NEIL WEBSTER, Beardown Adventures, testified via teleconference.
Mr. Webster requested that the committee move HB 144 out of
committee today.
TAPE 01-38, SIDE B
MR. WEBSTER informed the committee that he has a long-standing
history in game management unit 16B, which is where he started
guiding and personal hunting in 1972. This unit has a unique
situation because there is some private land and access is
controlled, and furthermore there is no competition with
transporters or other hunters. Both residents and nonresidents
are strictly controlled [in this unit]. Mr. Webster informed
the committee that in 1995 there were 82 nonresident hunters,
which increased to 118 nonresident hunters in 1999. With regard
to guided moose hunters, such hunts grew from 38 in 1995 to 44
in 1999. Although those numbers don't show a large increase,
the transporter numbers do because in 1995 there were 11 drop
offs, which increased to 40 in 1999. That is a 300-400 percent
increase in nonresident hunters, which is evident in many of the
game units. Mr. Webster said, "Unfortunately, we are in a
situation where we no longer have a valid wildlife management
program. We do not control the predators. All we're involved
with now is controlling the hunting groups." The situation has
reached the point at which the guide industry will take a "hit
on the chin." Personally, Mr. Webster said that he would face
some financial loss due to the Board of Games' closure of unit
16B. He pointed out that the closures of units 13, 17, and 19
are coming. He questioned when the closures would stop. If a
predator control program can't be stopped, then these
nonresident party hunts have to be stopped. He acknowledged the
point that this legislation is merely a band aid when a
tourniquet is necessary. To that he said, "But you don't eat a
moose in one bite; you eat it a little bit at a time." This
bill is necessary "as a positive step to protect this industry."
Mr. Webster indicated agreement with Mr. Roczicka in that a
multi-million dollar guide industry may be jeopardized because
the state can't implement a valid predator control program. Mr.
Webster urged the committee to forward HB 144. However, he
expressed concern that the bill he has allows a resident to take
out three nonresident hunters, which he considered a party hunt.
Number 2242
DAVID HAEG, Director, Alaska's Western Wildlife Alliance (AWWA),
informed the committee that AWWA consists of people who are very
dependent upon Alaska's wildlife resource from both a
subsistence and economic point of view. He said that AWWA
strongly urges the committee to support the CS. This
legislation would effectively solve the problem of illegal or
"sub-legal" takes, subsistence related conflicts, and violations
of wanton waste laws by unguided nonresident moose hunters.
This problem has grown such that now it threatens subsistence
and guide use of the state's moose resource. Both the
aforementioned uses are vitally important to many parts of rural
Alaska. A resource as important as moose should be protected
from waste and other abuse and thus a guide requirement for
nonresident hunters will help achieve that.
MR. HAEG informed the committee that the 1,000 guided
nonresident moose hunters bring in over $14 million, primarily
to rural Alaska. The over 2,000 nonguided nonresident moose
hunters bring in just over $6 million. "We should not
jeopardize a $14 million industry with a hunting segment which
not only accounts for most cases of waste and conflict, but
which, with its rapidly rising numbers, is overtaxing a
declining resource," he said. In conclusion, Mr. Haeg noted
that AWWA and APHA support the buddy hunt amendment with a limit
of one nonresident per resident being able to come up per year.
Number 2144
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS turned to the earlier mention of the
waste that occurs as a result of nonresident hunters. He
understood the implication to be that there is no waste from
resident hunters. He asked if Mr. Haeg could provide further
information on that notion.
MR. HAEG noted that he had provided committee members with a
letter from Fish & Wildlife Protection in King Salmon, which
says that the only cases of waste found were from nonguided
nonresidents. In the last several years they have found no
waste from guided nonresident hunters. He indicated that
another fish and wildlife officer from up North had promised him
a letter that related the same findings as the letter pertaining
to King Salmon. Mr. Haeg informed the committee that the Native
Alaskans that have contacted him have great concern with the
nonguided [nonresident] hunters that are dropped off and take
rafts down the rivers. When the hunters "pull-out" in the
villages, none of the meat is usable. Such cases aren't very
well-documented. He specified that he obtained his information
last year.
CO-CHAIR MASEK inquired as to where Mr. Haeg is obtaining his
figures that relate to saying that nonresident hunters are
responsible for the wanton waste violations.
MR. HAEG answered that much of that information was drawn from
Proposal 114, which was amended by the Board of Game. He read
the following paragraph from Proposal 114:
In recent years, the Board of Game has received
numerous complaints and concerns regarding the rapid
increase and no upper limit to the numbers of hunters
using outfitters and air taxi drop-off services,
illegal or sub-legal take, subsistence-related
conflicts, and violations of wanton waste laws are of
significantly greater proportion for unguided
nonresident hunters using these services.
CO-CHAIR MASEK expressed her difficulty in determining whether a
hunter is a resident or a nonresident. She seemed to think that
much of this information is from one area of the state and thus
isn't a statewide problem. She asked if the people testifying
before the Board of Game are from a specific game management
unit area.
MR. HAEG said that he has received reports from almost down to
the Alaska Peninsula up to Fairbanks and east. He noted that
most of the complaints are coming from the rural areas, mainly
along the river corridors.
MR. HAEG, in further response to Co-Chair Masek, reiterated that
AWWA supports this legislation as does APHA.
Number 1905
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE referred to a bar chart that illustrates
the number of moose hunters by origin. She said she understood
the chart to say that the number of hunters has decreased over
the last five years.
MR. HAEG agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said then that the number of hunters in
the field has decreased and yet, moose are on the decline.
Therefore, she asked if any other factors would contribute to
the moose decline other than wanton waste of nonresident
hunters.
MR. HAEG agreed that there are other factors that have
contributed to the decline of the moose. He echoed earlier
testimony that predation is probably the primary factor in the
moose decline. However, "we" haven't been able to do much about
predation. Therefore, predation combined with other problems
from nonresident hunters are threatening a large rural industry,
guiding. He said that [AWWA] would agree that addressing
predation would be a more effective solution, which they have
tried. Therefore, this legislation addresses another part of
the problem that can be addressed, nonguided nonresident
hunters.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked whether Mr. Haeg was of the opinion
that if HB 144 passes, the problem will be alleviated.
MR. HAEG replied no, although he felt that the problem would be
"eased." In the long term, this legislation will help. Mr.
Haeg explained, "Either you can allow nonguided hunters to keep
coming to Alaska ... and them adding to the problem and then
just shutting off all nonresident hunting and killing the guide
industry. Or, you can start cutting back ... part of the
effort."
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE interjected that she has heard two
different things labeled as the issue: wanton waste and the
guiding industry.
MR. HAEG explained that rural Native communities started with
the wanton waste issue. Although guides said that they weren't
part of that problem, the Board of Game has to limit guiding as
well as nonguiding. In work with the Native communities, the
Native communities have agreed that guiding is not the problem
but rather the problem is the nonresidents that aren't guided.
However, the Board of Game can't differentiate between guided
and nonguided hunters. Therefore, "the Board of Game, to
address the problem of the Natives, has to use a sledge hammer,
although ... they say that they would ... like to be able to do
something else." So, the [goal] was to address wanton waste,
but in the process it has jeopardized the guide industry, who
doesn't place as near the impact on the environment as the
nonguided hunter.
Number 1724
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE related her understanding that there are
enforcement mechanisms in place for wanton waste; it is illegal.
Therefore, she asked if the [problem] is that the current law
isn't being enforced.
MR. HAEG agreed that lack of enforcement is part of it.
However, he pointed out that probably the largest part of that
is the fact that the guide is responsible for that hunter. Mr.
Haeg pointed out that when a hunter commits a crime, the guide
is the first one charged. However, the drop-off service isn't
held accountable.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE posed the possibility of drafting a bill
that would hold drop-off services liable for wanton waste and
asked if that would address the same problem.
MR. HAEG replied, "It possibly would, but we're also looking at
a diminishing resource and we'd like to try slowing down the
effort." He recalled that such an effort was tried several
years ago, but it went nowhere.
Number 1625
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT related his understanding that there are
roughly 2,000 nonguided [nonresident] hunters. According to the
bar chart, Representative Chenault estimated that there were
probably 500 guided nonresident hunters, 300-400 nonresident
hunters that are transported, and then the solo nonresident
hunter. He posed a situation in which HB 144 was enacted and
the approximately 1,000 solo nonresident hunters came forward
and wanted to take a guided hunt. In such a situation, he
wondered whether the purpose [of HB 144] had been defeated
because, in his opinion, the guide would take as many people
hunting as allowed or as many as the guide had the opportunity
to take.
MR. HAEG compared a guide to a farmer because the guide "is
fixed in a spot." Mr. Haeg informed the committee that he has
dramatically cut back his hunts this year because he knows what
is happening. He further informed the committee that he has a
fixed lodge and through the guide board he is bound to three
small areas. If he over harvests in his areas, then he is
cutting his own throat. However, an air taxi can go in and find
groups of moose and annihilate them and then fly elsewhere. Mr.
Haeg noted that he actually polices the area and reports any
abuse to fish and wildlife protection because anything happening
in his area will haunt him in future years.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT related his understanding that as a
guide, one can only guide in a particular area and thus cannot
guide in other spots in the state.
MR. HAEG clarified that he is allowed three fairly small
specific areas. Although he is allowed to change those areas,
most guides like himself have fixed lodges that are impossible
to move.
Number 1481
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if Mr. Haeg is a member of the
National Rifle Association (NRA), which has sent a letter in
strong opposition to this legislation.
MR. HAEG affirmed that he is a member of the NRA, but that he
has not seen the letter.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS pointed out that the NRA's letter charges
that this legislation is discriminatory in nature. Furthermore,
the net loss in hunting opportunity concerns the NRA, which
views HB 144 as an anti-gun bill.
MR. HAEG related his belief that the NRA letter the committee
has isn't representative of the general membership of the NRA.
Mr. Haeg said that he views HB 144 as Alaska looking out for its
resource.
Number 1399
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER returned to the issue of wanton waste.
She remarked that when one is shooting moose, it is difficult to
determine whether the moose has a 50 inch rack. Representative
Kapsner, a co-sponsor of HB 144, informed the committee that she
is a member of the NRA and she believes it is important for
Alaska to look after its own state resources. She said, "If
we're looking at a Tier II hunt for in-state residents versus
letting anybody from outside come in and shoot our moose, I
think that's a scary thing."
CO-CHAIR MASEK related her belief that guided hunters are twice
as successful than those that don't go out with a guide.
Number 1309
KELVIN GURNEY testified via teleconference. He noted his
support of HB 144 as amended. He also noted the importance of
the buddy option. Mr. Gurney related a story in which he went
hunting in Mulchatna. At the airport there, he saw several
hunters with only moose racks. When asked where the meat was,
the hunters all said that a bear got the meat. Although Mr.
Gurney supported the bill, he felt that predators are the number
one cause of the moose's decline and it is disappointing that
can't be addressed.
Number 1217
JOE KLUTSCH, Master Guide, Katmai Guide Service, testified via
teleconference. Mr. Klutsch, who has lived in the Bush for over
30 years, informed the committee that he has been a hunting and
fishing photography guide. He said that this legislation will
go a long way in making lawful hunting by nonresidents more
enforceable. Furthermore, this legislation will reduce
conflicts amongst users in the field and will result in a
spatial distribution of effort. That is, there will not be high
concentrations of hunters at river and lake corridors, which is
where transporters often drop hunters with no regard for other
users, the impact on the resource, or the quality of the
experience. He remarked that guides have a stewardship
incentive [in their designated areas].
MR. KLUTSCH related his belief that this legislation is more
than a mere band aid. He said he feels that this legislation is
a step in the right direction. However, he did believe that in
conjunction with this legislation there will need to be some
meaningful predator management, which he believes will come. He
expressed the need for balance between predator and prey.
MR. KLUTSCH remarked that ADF&G will probably be in opposition
to this legislation due to the attached fiscal note. He
acknowledged that there will be an initial reduction in the
number of nonresident tag fees if this legislation was adopted.
Therefore, Mr. Klutsch suggested the need for tag fee increases
in order to compensate for the overall decline in nonresident
fees. He said that he has a number of formulas that could be
utilized to accomplish that goal. In regard to Mr. Bishop's
analogy to New Mexico, Mr. Klutsch disagreed and felt that there
will be more than enough folks from the Lower 48 who will be
willing to pay what it takes to have an honest hunt in Alaska.
In conclusion, Mr. Klutsch expressed his hope that this bill
will be moved forward.
GEORGE SIAVELIS testified via teleconference. He informed the
committee that he has been a subsistence hunter for about 20
years as well as a small guide. Mr. Siavelis urged support of
HB 144, although he believes that it is a band-aid bill for all
the issues. This legislation will greatly reduce the wasting of
moose meat, the killing of sub-legal moose by nonresidents,
nonresident pressure on a dwindling resource, and field
conflicts with subsistence users and thus provide a better
subsistence opportunity. This legislation is a statewide
solution versus the Board of Game's proposal 114, which has the
potential of rearranging pressure demographics. Mr. Siavelis
remarked that the Board of Game desperately needs some
legislative assistance in alleviating the aforementioned
problems. He mentioned his belief that no other state has an
animal this size hunted in such unfamiliar terrain. He also
mentioned that air transporters don't rely on the moose
resources to the degree that guides do. Mr. Siavelis related
his belief that all responsible guides and nonresident hunters
should and will support an increase in the big game tag fee.
Number 0691
LES KRANK testified via teleconference. He announced his
support of HB 144. This [legislation] is not being done for a
special interest group but rather to help the resource. To his
knowledge, the guiding industry is the only group that has come
forward with legislation as a solution. He remarked that the
problems with air transporters are just part of the problem.
Mr. Krank echoed earlier comments by Mr. Haeg regarding the
belief that guides are stewards of their area. Mr. Krank
pointed out that although the number of hunters has declined
over the past years, since the 50 inch minimum and/or three or
four brow tine requirement, there are probably many unguided
nonresidents who are shooting one to three moose before taking a
legal moose. In regard to the tag fees increase, Mr. Krank was
supportive of that as a means of off-setting some of the costs
that ADF&G will incur. He turned to the letter from the NRA, of
which he is a member, and related his belief that the member
base had not been contacted.
MR. KRANK noted that he is a guide and stands to loose a fair
amount of money to the unguided hunter. However, he is willing
to give that up if it would help [the moose population]. He
expressed the hope that in the future the predator problem could
be addressed. However, if something isn't done today, then no
one will have the moose population to pursue. He recalled that
it takes about 30 years for a moose population to turn around
whereas it takes about 3-4 years for a wolf population to turn
around.
Number 0349
JIMMY HURLEY testified via teleconference and mentioned that his
a member of the Nushagak Advisory Committee. Mr. Hurley noted
his support of HB 144. He expressed the desire for moose to be
around for a long time. He echoed earlier testimony regarding
the competition between [nonresident hunters] and subsistence
hunters. He also touched on the fact that many [nonresident
hunters] are uneducated in preserving moose meat. Furthermore,
those that are dropped off [at a river] face the reality that
the rafts can only hold so much. Mr. Hurley said, "I think this
is a real good bill."
TAPE 01-39, SIDE A
Number 0015
MATT ROBUS, Deputy Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), announced that the
department opposes HB 144. Firstly, the department doesn't
believe that the bill will achieve its primary goals of reducing
wanton waste and hunter conflict. Secondly, this legislation
will be extremely costly to the department's wildlife management
programs. Thirdly, this legislation could jeopardize the
existing system of nonresident guide requirements for other
species.
MR. ROBUS addressed the issue of wanton waste, which the
department understands to be one of the primary reasons for HB
144. The legislation is based on the assumption that
nonresident hunters are less knowledgeable about moose and about
Alaska and thus are more likely to make a mistake and commit a
violation. However, wanton waste isn't restricted to
nonresident hunters because it occurs across all classes of
hunters. As the bar chart illustrates, nonresident hunters are
the smallest hunting group. He pointed out that the bar
representing nonresident hunters is divided into the following
groups: guided nonresident, transported nonresident, and solo
nonresident. Mr. Robus said that even if those nonresidents are
somewhat more likely to commit wanton waste violations, it is
difficult to believe that attacking 6 percent of the total moose
hunter population would significantly impact wanton waste
violations statewide. In fact, the headquarters of the Fish &
Wildlife Protection Division said that they were confident that
it would be safe to say that the majority of wanton waste
violations in this state are not committed by nonresident
hunters.
MR. ROBUS said, "The way to improve wanton waste in this state
is through education and an adequate enforcement presence. Both
of those are possible, both occur to some extent, and both are
funding issues for our agency and for the troopers." However,
requiring a guide to solve the problem basically deters 75
percent of the nonresident hunters because the price difference
between a nonguided hunt and a guided hunt. The department
believes that will be an obstacle for many people and thus will
cause them not to go moose hunting.
MR. ROBUS turned to the issue of conflict between hunters and
the competition for moose. Again, Mr. Robus pointed out that
only 6 percent of the hunters are effected by HB 144. In the
department's opinion, conflict is more likely to occur between
local and nonlocal residents versus with nonresidents. He
acknowledged that there is conflict in moose hunting areas.
However, the 6 percent of nonguided nonresident hunters are only
part of the problem.
Number 0332
MR. ROBUS said that a more appropriate way to address the
aforementioned conflict and reduce wanton waste would be to re-
create a Big Game Commercial Services Board that would have
jurisdiction to manage guides as well as transporters. As
mentioned earlier, this legislation will not heavily impact
transporters because a high percentage of their clientele is
Alaska residents. The legislature needs to help control the
number of people that are being dropped off in these areas
[where] the conflict is being created.
MR. ROBUS addressed the state's ability to require guides for
nonresidents. Such a requirement is placed on the following
three species: brown bear, mountain goat, and Dall sheep. That
discrimination has been justified with the safety argument,
which is that the animal is dangerous as is its terrain. The
other argument is that a hunter cannot obtain much exposure to
those three species other than in Alaska. However, moose has
been successfully killed by nonresidents for years and thus the
safety argument is difficult to make. Furthermore, several
other states offer moose hunts and thus the exposure argument is
difficult to make also. Therefore, requiring all nonresidents
to have guides could make the entire system of requiring guides
for nonresident hunters for certain species more vulnerable to a
legal challenge. The department cautions against that.
MR. ROBUS moved on to the fiscal impact of HB 144. He noted
that the department is making several assumptions and although
these assumptions may not be perfect, they are the best
available. He informed the committee that when mountain goat
hunting was changed such that nonresidents were required to have
a guide, there was a 70 percent decrease in the number of goat
hunters. If that figure is applied to the portion of
nonresidents that are not guided and the $485 per person fee is
used, it amounts to just under $1 million, which is the fiscal
note. Mr. Robus pointed out that the small bar on the chart,
the nonresident hunters, contributed about $2 million in ADF&G
revenue, which is used to run the program. That approximately
$2 million is more than all resident hunters contributed for all
species. Therefore, he remarked that Alaskan hunters have a
good deal, but [the department] depends on nonresident hunters
to contribute a fair amount to the program and thus the
department would take a tremendous hit if HB 144 passed.
Additionally he predicted that Alaska would lose $3,000 per
hunter that chose not to come to Alaska; that prediction is
based on an economic study done for the department in the mid
1990s.
MR. ROBUS concluded by saying that the department views HB 144
as a costly bill and probably one that won't be very effective
in curing the problems. He acknowledged that there are problems
and pointed out that the Board of Game has done what it could to
control what it can in places like game management unit 19 where
there is a drawing hunt that caps nonresident hunters. Mr.
Robus reiterated the department's opinion that the best way to
approach this would be to re-establish a Big Game Services
Board.
Number 06368
CO-CHAIR MASEK inquired as to how federal matching funds impact
the budget.
MR. ROBUS reminded the committee that the Division of Wildlife
Conservation, the wildlife management arm of ADF&G, has very
little general fund in its budget. Almost all of the division's
operations are based on ADF&G fund expenditures. However,
Pittman Robertson money is received from the federal government,
but that money requires a 1:3 state match. He said, "Now, we're
overmatched. So, I'm not saying that all of this million
dollars is going to lose us three million dollars of federal
money, but a million dollars out of our operations -- this loss
that we project would be about 10 percent of Fish & Game fund
revenues on an annual basis. That's a substantial chunk."
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if HB 144 will really address conservation
because it seems that this will only impact about 6 percent of
the hunters. Furthermore, hunters are 35-68 percent more
successful with a guide.
MR. ROBUS remarked that the conservation aspect of this is
basically under the control of the Board of Game. The board has
shown that when a wildlife population reaches the point at which
it can't satisfy the entire demand of hunters, the first thing
to go is nonresident effort. Since "we" don't have a way to
control the number of nonresident hunters entering an area, the
Board of Game is faced with allowing as much hunting as the
herds can support and after that [groups] must be eliminated.
Therefore, the board has had to use its available tool of
trimming nonresident hunters and sometimes cutting them entirely
or even going to a Tier II hunt. Therefore, this bill will
probably not make a difference in the way moose populations are
faring.
Number 0855
CO-CHAIR MASEK inquired as to how one can be sure that this bill
reduces wanton waste.
MR. ROBUS remarked that the assumption can be made that a
knowledgeable guide can help a nonresident hunter figure out how
to deal with a moose once it's down. However, he pointed out
that if all of the guided hunters and nonguided hunters had
guides, then that amounts to no more than 8 percent of the total
hunter population. Unfortunately, there is still a certain
amount of wanton waste that occurs with Alaskans. Mr. Robus
reiterated that this legislation impacts a very small portion of
the hunt. Even if this portion is impacted positively, the
nonlocal Alaskans, the second largest bar on the chart, and
local Alaskans are not being addressed.
MR. ROBUS, in further response to Co-Chair Masek, said that he
didn't know the number of citations given for wanton waste
violations in 1999 or 2000. He reminded everyone that the
Division of Fish & Wildlife Protection is the enforcement arm of
the state and that division isn't in ADF&G.
Number 0975
WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, said that he didn't have that
information. He noted that he had called the Division of Fish &
Wildlife Protection earlier and it didn't have that information
readily available. However, he was sure that information could
be provided by the division. Mr. Regelin acknowledged that
wanton waste is a problem, but noted that it is a small portion
of the hunters in general. He added that Alaska probably has
some of the most strict wanton waste laws in the nation, but
more enforcement is needed.
Number 1067
REPRESENTATIVE FATE referred to page 2, line 2, which in part
says, "An applicant for a nonresident hunt permit". He asked if
there will be a special permit or will a nonresident just obtain
an out-of-state license and a moose tag.
MR. ROBUS explained that in many cases nonresidents would have
to apply for a drawing permit, while in other cases the
nonresident would merely obtain a registration permit. He was
not aware of a special nonresident permit.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE pointed out that on page 2, line 5, the
language refers to a "permit hunt". Therefore, he was confused
as to whether it's a permit hunt or whether the license and tag
are part of the permits issued to the nonresident.
MR. REGELIN informed the committee that he didn't have the work
draft until he arrived today.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE referred to page 2, line 6, which says "the
applicant has contracted to guide the permit hunt." In the case
of Section 4(3)(A), would that individual who complies with the
requirements be able to have a verbal agreement or would a
special form be required. Representative Fate felt that this
makes a big difference and is a point that could be litigated.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER pointed out that the House Resources
Standing Committee penned the CS and thus he didn't know.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE remarked that he was bothered by some of the
terminology.
Number 1286
CO-CHAIR SCALZI inquired as to why Mr. Robus felt that a Big
Game Commercial Services Board would be a better solution.
MR. ROBUS noted that the Big Game Commercial Services Board is
commonly referred to as the Guide Board. If there was a guide
board that had jurisdiction over guide outfitters as well as
transporters, then the state would have a mechanism to regulate
the amount of nonresidents that are guided and transported as
well as transported residents. Therefore, a much larger
proportion of the moose hunters would be regulated in a way that
didn't swamp out moose populations or local residents. In
further response to Co-Chair Scalzi, Mr. Robus said that it
would be up to the legislature to put together the board. In
his opinion, the Board of Game has its hands full regulating the
wildlife and thus he would hesitate to give this to them also.
Number 1364
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE referred to the buddy hunt and related
her understanding that Mr. Robus had said that a different
division enforces this.
MR. ROBUS agreed. In response to whether he could answer
enforcement questions, Mr. Robus reiterated that he received the
CS today and that his testimony wasn't originally written to
speak to the CS. However, an initial reaction to the extra
recordkeeping for the Alaskans serving as the guide buddy would
require some new [procedures] that aren't currently in place.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said she understood then that the form
providing advance notification of the buddy hunt would have to
be developed as would procedures for creating the form, reading
the form, and tracking it.
MR. ROBUS agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE related her belief that these are serious
consequences [for violation of the provisions of HB 144]. She
pointed out that Section 4(g)(3)(B) refers to the resident being
allowed to accompany not more than three nonresidents. She felt
that [the unclear language] would create enforcement problems
because does it mean that the resident cannot take more than
three residents at a time or at separate times. Furthermore,
Section 4(g)(3)(C) says "does not receive compensation for
accompanying the nonresident to hunt moose." She asked if a
nonresident provided gas money, would that be considered
compensation. She then referred to Section 4(g)(2) and asked if
an 18-year-old college student has his family come up to hunt,
would that 18-year-old be sent to jail for a year.
MR. ROBUS said that although he can't answer that very well, he
believes that those are important questions. With regard to
chipping in for gas, Mr. Robus said he believes that
reimbursement of expenses is different than compensation. He
noted that he had spoken with Mr. Saxby, Assistant Attorney
General, Natural Resources Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law, today on a similar question.
MR. ROBUS turned to the seriousness of the offense and related
his belief that it is about the same now for wanton waste
violations. Mr. Robus said, "It's probably one of the most
serious wildlife crimes there is."
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE agreed that wanton waste is a serious
offense. However, she expressed concern with the vagueness of
the language referring to the buddy hunt. Therefore, she
believes that there may be some unanticipated consequences.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE recalled testimony from guides that said
the amount of revenue the department may lose may be countered
by increasing the cost of the tag. She inquired as to the
[department's] view on that and the possibility of taxing the
guides.
Number 1600
MR. REGELIN expressed the need to be cautious regarding how much
more nonresidents are charged versus residents. There have been
court cases in Colorado regarding the appropriateness of the
differential. Currently, Alaska charges "way over" that
differential partly because it is so inexpensive for a resident
to hunt. Mr. Regelin pointed out the need to keep in mind that
the state is in competition for hunters and Alaska is at the
high end for what other states charge for big game tag fees for
nonresident hunters. He also pointed out that most states are
similar to Alaska in that 10 percent of the hunters pay for 90
percent of the bills. Mr. Regelin acknowledged that there are
other ways in which the money could be obtained, such as a tax
on the guide or a fee for each animal. Those mechanisms would
have to be done by the legislature or the legislature would need
to create the Big Game Commercial Services Board and provide
them the authority to enact such regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS inquired as to the intention of the Co-
Chairs with HB 144.
Number 1714
CO-CHAIR MASEK appointed the following subcommittee:
Representatives Green, McGuire, and Kerttula. [HB 144 was heard
and held and a subcommittee was assigned.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|