03/14/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR19 | |
| HB174 | |
| HB89 | |
| HJR8 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 14, 2011
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Neal Foster
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19
Urging the United States Senate to ratify the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea.
- MOVED CSHJR 19(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 174
"An Act relating to the period in which a permit authorizing
activities in the state related to mineral resources, oil or
gas, or transportation projects is valid when activities
authorized by the permit have been stayed by a court or
administrative order."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 89
"An Act authorizing the commissioner of natural resources to
offer bedload material for disposal for flood control purposes
in exchange for a percentage of the profit from the sale of that
material."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8
Urging the United States Food and Drug Administration to deny an
application to sell genetically engineered salmon in the United
States; urging compliance with the provision of P.L. 110-85
(Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007) that
requires the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to consult with the
National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration regarding a report on environmental
risks associated with genetically engineered seafood products;
and urging that product labeling requirements include the words
"Genetically Modified" prominently displayed on the front of the
package if the application is approved by the United States Food
and Drug Administration.
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 19
SHORT TITLE: URGING US TO RATIFY LAW OF THE SEA TREATY
SPONSOR(s): ECON. DEV., TRADE & TOURISM
03/07/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/07/11 (H) EDT, RES
03/08/11 (H) EDT AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
03/08/11 (H) Moved CSHJR 19(EDT) Out of Committee
03/08/11 (H) MINUTE(EDT)
03/09/11 (H) EDT RPT CS(EDT) 7DP 1DNP 1NR
03/09/11 (H) DP: GARDNER, THOMPSON, MUNOZ, JOULE,
TUCK, FOSTER, HERRON
03/09/11 (H) DNP: KELLER
03/09/11 (H) NR: OLSON
03/14/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 174
SHORT TITLE: EXTENDING STAYED PERMITS
SPONSOR(s): FEIGE
02/25/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/25/11 (H) RES, JUD
03/14/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 89
SHORT TITLE: EXTRACTION OF BEDLOAD MATERIAL
SPONSOR(s): SEATON
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/14/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) RES, FIN
03/14/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HJR 8
SHORT TITLE: OPPOSE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED SALMON
SPONSOR(s): KAWASAKI
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) FSH, RES
02/10/11 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/10/11 (H) Moved CSHJR 8(FSH) Out of Committee
02/10/11 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/14/11 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NT 6DP
02/14/11 (H) DP: HERRON, MILLER, PRUITT, JOHNSON,
KAWASAKI, THOMPSON
03/11/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/11/11 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/14/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
ROB EARL, Staff
Representative Bob Herron
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the provisions of HJR 19 on behalf
of Representative Herron, sponsor.
DR. LAWSON BRIGHAM, Professor of Geography and Arctic Policy
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 19.
PAUL FUHS, Chairman
Board of Directors
Marine Exchange of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided remarks on HJR 19.
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 19.
WYN MENEFEE, Acting Director
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 174, answered
questions.
CAMERON LEONARD, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Fairbanks)
Department of Law
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 174, answered
questions.
LOUIE FLORA, Staff
Representative Paul Seaton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 89 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Seaton.
ROGER HEALY, P.E., Director/Chief Engineer
Division of Statewide Design & Engineering Services
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided suggestions regarding HB 89.
DONALD BULLOCK, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 89, answered
questions.
PHILLIP E. OATES, City Manager
City of Seward
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 89, Version B.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:05:19 PM
CO-CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives Herron,
Gardner, Kawasaki, Feige, and Seaton were present at the call to
order. Representatives Dick, Munoz, and P. Wilson arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HJR 19-URGING US TO RATIFY LAW OF THE SEA TREATY
1:06:31 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business is
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19, Urging the United States Senate
to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
[Before the committee was CSHJR 19(EDT).]
1:06:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, speaking on behalf of the House Special
Committee on Economic Development, International Trade and
Tourism that he chairs and who is the sponsor of HJR 19,
informed the committee that the Law of the Sea treaty has been
around for quite awhile. However, the U.S. Senate has chosen
not to debate it or vote on it. Representative Herron stated
that the U.S. is an Arctic nation because of Alaska, which
results in broad and fundamental interest in the Arctic region
where the U.S. seeks to meet its national security needs,
protect the environment, responsibly manage and develop the
nation's resources, protect and account for [the nation's]
indigenous communities, support scientific research, and
strengthen international cooperation on a wide range of issues.
The aforementioned is what HJR 19 will accomplish, he opined.
1:08:39 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that before the committee is CSHJR
19(EDT).
1:09:11 PM
ROB EARL, Staff, Representative Bob Herron, Alaska State
Legislature, stated:
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas
(UNCLOS) was entered into force in November 1994.
This convention establishes a treaty regime to govern
activities on, over, and under the world's oceans.
Mr. Chairman, it builds on the four 1958 Law of the
Sea conventions and sets forth a framework for future
activities in parts of the oceans that are beyond
national jurisdiction. The treaty comprises 320
articles and 9 annexes .... The convention defines
the rights and responsibilities of nations and their
use of the world's oceans. As Representative Herron
mentioned, this particular resolution, HJR 19, urges
U.S. Senate ratification of the treaty. And [U.S.]
Senator Lisa Murkowski, in her speech to the
legislature on February 24th requested such a
resolution to help her get a ratification vote to the
[U.S.] Senate floor. Under the treaty, member nations
can claim an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) up to 200
miles from their coast with sovereign rights to
explore, develop, and manage the resources within that
zone. A claim can extend beyond the 200 mile limit if
a connection can be proven that the nation's
continental shelf extends beyond 200 miles. It's
estimated the area off ... the north coast of Alaska
is about the size of California.
1:10:53 PM
MR. EARL then directed the committee's attention to the slides
entitled "Chinese Claims," which were provided by U.S. Coast
Guard Admiral Colvin. On slide 1 he highlighted the quote from
the Chinese admiral who said that since one-fifth of the world's
population lives in China, China is entitled to one-fifth of the
resources in the Arctic's international waters. The second
slide tracks the Chinese in the Arctic in the summers of 2009
and 2010.
1:11:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON interjected that the slides that provide
the tracking of the Chinese vessel were provided in concert with
the Marine Exchange.
1:12:19 PM
MR. EARL then directed attention to slide 4, which illustrates
the remaining unclaimed space in the Arctic. Slide 5
illustrates the portion of the unclaimed space in the Arctic
that the U.S. could claim, which is where the Chinese have been
operating. In response to Representative Gardner, Mr. Earl
confirmed that with ratification of UNCLOS the U.S. could extend
its claim as illustrated in slide 5. The UNCLOS has to first be
ratified before the U.S. can make a claim.
1:12:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON pointed out that under Article 76 of the
convention a coastal state with a broad continental margin limit
may establish a shelf limit beyond 200 miles. Therefore, the
[claim] could be for 350 miles. Because of the extension of the
continental shelf, there are areas of potential that are beyond
imagination. As the prior slides illustrate the Chinese are
exploring from 201-400 miles, and thus it's in the best interest
of the nation in terms of national security to have jurisdiction
over the extra 150 miles.
1:14:04 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE related his assumption that the Russians have
signed onto this treaty.
MR. EARL replied yes, adding that all Arctic nations, save the
U.S., have signed on to the treaty.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to why the Canadians haven't extended
their EEZ.
MR. EARL answered that the Canadians have made their claim with
the United Nations, but he didn't believe that it has been
approved yet.
1:14:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, addressing Russia's 2001 claim to the
international boundary that extends to the North Pole, informed
the committee that all the other nations don't believe that is a
legitimate claim. He explained that once a nation joins the
treaty, it has only 10 years to make extended claims. However,
even a nation that's not a member of the treaty can still
provide comments about the claims.
1:16:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to the reason the U.S.
hasn't signed on to the treaty.
MR. EARL responded that some people are concerned about a loss
of sovereignty, although the benefits greatly outweigh anything
that's given up. The UNCLOS hasn't been ratified because there
are certain U.S. Senators who oppose its ratification. In
further response to Representative P. Wilson, Mr. Earl informed
the committee that 161 countries have signed the treaty thus
far.
1:17:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON noted that the committee packet includes
pro- and anti-ratification arguments in the packet. Since the
U.S. isn't a member of the committee, it cannot make extended
claims and has little to say about the claims other countries
make. Representative Herron highlighted that the U.S. would
have the largest EEZ area in the world, if it signed the treaty.
1:18:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved to adopt CSHJR 19, Version 27-
LS0608\I, Kane, 3/9/11, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected for discussion purposes.
1:19:13 PM
MR. EARL informed the committee that the Legislative Research
Services report dated March 11, 2011, precipitated Version I.
The Legislative Research Services was asked to vet the "WHEREAS"
clauses and they found the need for a couple of changes. On
page 3, lines 14-17, the language was reworded in recognition
that there wasn't a hearing in 1994 but rather was pending.
Also, Legislative Research Services found that the "WHEREAS"
clause on page 3, lines 12-13, had inadvertently been eliminated
and thus is reinserted in Version I.
1:20:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER removed her objection.
There being no further objection, Version I was before the
committee.
1:21:03 PM
DR. LAWSON BRIGHAM, Professor of Geography and Arctic Policy,
University of Alaska Fairbanks, provided the following
testimony:
My name is Lawson Brigham and I am a Distinguished
Professor of Geography and Arctic Policy at the
University of Alaska Fairbanks. I was a Coast Guard
officer for 25 years, icebreakers at both ends of the
world. I have also served as the Alaska Office
Director of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission in
Anchorage. Of relevance to this topic, during 2005-09
I was Chair and U.S. Lead for the Arctic Council's
Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA), a large
assessment that deals with enhanced marine safety and
environmental protection for the Arctic Ocean,
including the coastal waters of the U.S. Arctic. A
central finding of AMSA was that the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was the key
legal framework from which we viewed all else in our
work; governing Arctic shipping and all other marine
uses. In our review in AMSA, we restated that since
the Arctic Ocean is one of earth's oceans, UNCLOS
provides the legal basis for managing the new maritime
Arctic. No new treaty or any comprehensive new
agreement by the Arctic States or other states is
necessary. Importantly, UNCLOS preserves and codifies
the principal of freedom of navigation for the Arctic
Ocean and the global oceans; a key tenant for U.S.
security and economic well-being. UNCLOS provides two
important articles one of which you've heard today.
Article 76 allows the coastal states in an orderly
process to assert sovereignty on the extended
continental shelf beyond the 200-mile Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ), out to 350 miles. Article 234
allows the coastal states the right to adopt and
enforce non-discriminatory laws and regulations for
the prevention, reduction and control of marine
pollution from vessels in ice-covered waters within
the EEZ. Both of these [articles] have important
implications for Alaska and the United States maritime
Arctic. [In December I had an opportunity to join
some 200 experts at the U.S. Naval War] College for a
Global Shipping Game that dealt with the Arctic and
future Panama Canal. One overwhelming outcome was
that the U.S. continued failure to ratify UNCLOS would
create substantial risk for the United States in terms
of economic development in the Arctic, and will
threaten the U.S. position as a global leader in
maritime issues. In summary, U.S. ratification of
UNCLOS is essential for all future challenges and
opportunities in the Arctic Ocean. In my mind, it is
at the heart of much of what we in Alaska and the
United States will do to protect, develop, manage and
lead in the future maritime Arctic.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to
speak.
1:24:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to the effect an extension of
the U.S. economic zone would have on the educational missions
the Chinese are performing in the Arctic.
1:24:43 PM
DR. BRIGHAM pointed out that the nation's sovereignty extends to
the fisheries and seabed resources, but doesn't restrict the
freedom of navigation and transit of those [Russia] ships. With
regard to education opportunities, Dr. Brigham surmised that
would refer to tourism. He said that all of the aforementioned
is allowable under UNCLOS.
1:25:25 PM
PAUL FUHS, Chairman, Board of Directors, Marine Exchange of
Alaska, began by informing the committee that the Marine
Exchange of Alaska was started by all the major elements of
shipping within Alaska and has provided vessel tracking
services. He then thanked Representative Herron for taking a
leadership position on this matter. Through the vessel tracking
it has become clear that there is much activity in the Arctic.
Mr. Fuhs opined that if the U.S. doesn't ratify UNCLOS, it's
surrendering its sovereignty. He identified one of the issues
as regulatory oversight in that there would be concern with
regard to [nations] not following the same rules that the [U.S.]
must. There has also been much concern with regard to oil and
gas development in the Arctic and discussing how best to
regulate that. He then presented a slide that illustrated the
receiving stations within Alaska, of which there are about 80.
Due to international maritime organization law, vessels over a
certain size are required to have a transponder [on the vessel].
With the increased concern regarding activity in the Arctic,
more receiving stations have been constructed. He also
presented a slide that relates the various types of vessels
operating in the Arctic.
1:28:19 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to the range on the transponders.
MR. FUHS answered that it depends upon the location and the
amount of radio activity in the area. For a "clean" site the
range is beyond 200 miles, with the longest range being 350
miles. The lowest range is 20 miles. He noted that they can
track vessels all the way over to the Russia coast line.
1:29:19 PM
MR. FUHS provided a picture of the Chinese ice breaker "Xue
Long." Although Xue Long is very large vessel, the Chinese are
building one that's even larger, and will perhaps be the largest
in the world, and intends to operate in the Arctic. He then
presented a picture of a bulk vessel that's delivering fuel to
the coast of Russia, which is always a concern. He also
presented a slide of the Gamble site, where there are Russian
vessels operating. The tanker in the slide is bound for
Canadian oil field development. He then provided a slide of the
offshore area of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) that's open
to other nations. When one moves past the OCS, it becomes so
deep that it's not rational for anyone to mine unless they're
going to mine deep sea nodules. Under the Law of the Sea
Treaty, deep sea mining of nodules is completely regulated, but
"for the rest, it would establish rights for us as a coastal
state."
1:30:41 PM
MR. FUHS, in response to Representative Gardner, clarified that
the slide with the tanker is not a Russian tanker, but rather is
bound for a Canadian oil field. He noted that the tracking of
the vessels provides the following information: type of vessel,
country of origin, cargo type, depth of vessel, various
operational aspects, and for some the rudder angle of the
vessel.
1:31:32 PM
MR. FUHS highlighted that the Marine Exchange of Alaska has the
technical ability to know what's going on in the Arctic and a
lot of activity is occurring in the Arctic. As policy makers,
he surmised that they would have to weigh the costs and benefits
[of the treaty]. However, he opined that failing to ratify the
Law of the Sea Treaty would result in surrendering the
sovereignty of the U.S.
1:32:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if there is any way Alaska could
make a commitment [to the treaty], but not the entire U.S.
MR. FUHS replied no, adding that treaties of the U.S. are
controlled exclusively by the U.S. Senate.
1:32:57 PM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), informed the committee that in November AML passed a
resolution in support of ratifying UNCLOS. Upon doing research
of the treaty, Ms. Wasserman discovered that the last seven or
eight presidents have been in favor of ratification of the
treaty as have most of the state department employees. However,
there is a holdout by a few members of the Senate who believe
they would be giving up economic sovereignty. Research also
resulted in AML believing that the most important aspect of the
Law of the Sea Treaty is to claim the seabed mineral resources
in the continental shelf, even beyond the 200 mile EEZ. The
limit of Alaska's area in Alaska's Arctic is unknown as
hydrographic surveys haven't determined the full extent of the
potential area along the Chukchi cap. The area is believed to
be very extensive and thought to even reach the North Pole. She
then recalled attending a meeting at which it was revealed that
seven or eight countries that don't border the Arctic were
making claims on Arctic mineral resources all the while the U.S.
twiddles its thumbs, which she characterized as very
irresponsible. She informed the committee that just last week
she was in Washington, D.C., where she and other western state
representatives had a meeting with the undersecretary of the
Department of Natural Resources. The big issue was the black-
footed ferret. Upon asking the undersecretary if he was aware
of all the mineral resources in the Arctic, the undersecretary
blankly stared at her and said he didn't believe that's in his
department. However, Ms. Wasserman said she believes otherwise.
She emphasized that it doesn't seem that the U.S. is tied into
this issue as well as it should be, although she related her
understanding that Alaska's Congressional delegation has done
quite a bit of research on the issue. The lack of ratification
of the Law of the Sea Treaty would simply retain the status quo.
Although the U.S. already abides by many of the laws of UNCLOS,
it doesn't have a voice. Therefore, she expressed hope that the
committee would support HJR 19.
1:36:42 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, upon determining no one else wised to testify,
closed public testimony.
1:37:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK inquired as to who the U.S. Senators are who
oppose [ratification of the treaty] and their arguments against
it.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON identified U.S. Senator Imhof as one of
the handful of U.S. Senators opposing ratification of the
treaty. The opposition is based on their belief that
[ratification of the treaty] would negatively impact the
sovereignty of the U.S. such that the U.S. sovereignty would be
giving up sovereignty to a tribunal. However, that's not the
view of the majority of folks who believe [ratification of the
treaty] would merely be surrendering the sovereignty of the U.S.
1:38:27 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, recalling a presentation by U.S. Senator Wicker
during the Energy Conference, related that U.S. Senator Wicker
expressed the need for the Secretary of State to utilize due
diligence to gain control of the minerals and oil and gas
resources [in the Arctic]. However, upon follow up regarding
the Law of the Sea Treaty, U.S. Senator Wicker was more reticent
because some interest groups feel there is some conflict with
sovereignty. He highlighted that every time the U.S. signs a
treaty, it's an international protocol to perform something.
Therefore, some feel that the U.S. shouldn't sign any
international protocol or treaty. Co-Chair Seaton highlighted
that initially there were four reasons why the Heritage
Foundation opposed UNCLOS. Upon corrections and changes, only
one of those reasons remain, which is that signing a treaty
gives up some sovereignty because of agreeing to a process that
includes more people than [only the U.S.] Co-Chair Seaton said
that's the only issue of which he is aware.
1:40:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK noted that he, too, is concerned about the
nation's sovereignty, which he believes has been compromised in
the past. Referring to the language on page 2, lines 5-8, that
relates the estimate "that the Arctic contains conventional oil
and gas resources totaling approximately 90,000,000,000 barrels
of oil", Representative Dick pointed out that Alaska can't even
access the oil on its own land. Therefore, accessing other oil
doesn't seem meaningful to him. Representative Dick said that
until he has more details regarding what would be given up in
terms of sovereignty, he couldn't support HJR 19.
1:41:42 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that the U.S. Coast
Guard, Navy, and other military [branches] have all supported
this. In fact, [Rear Admiral Christopher C. Colvin], Commander,
Seventeenth Coast Guard District, U.S. Coast Guard, Department
of Homeland Security, obtained special permission to testify at
a previous hearing. He mentioned that Rear Admiral Colvin's
written testimony is included in the committee packet.
1:42:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON clarified that the language to which
Representative Dick referred merely specifies that if the U.S.
does not sign the treaty, then it's surrendering [those
resources] to other nations. These are resources to which the
U.S. has legitimate claim. Once the treaty is signed, the U.S.
could extend 150 miles [beyond the existing zone] and the U.S.
would be in first position. However, if the U.S. chooses not to
ratify the treaty and another country lays claim to those
resources, then the U.S. is in second position.
1:43:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report CSHJR 19, Version 27-
LS0608\I, Kane, 3/9/11, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHJR 19(RES) was reported from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
1:44:06 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:44 p.m. to 1:46 p.m.
HB 174-EXTENDING STAYED PERMITS
1:46:25 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 174, "An Act relating to the period in which a
permit authorizing activities in the state related to mineral
resources, oil or gas, or transportation projects is valid when
activities authorized by the permit have been stayed by a court
or administrative order."
1:46:35 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, speaking as the sponsor HB 174, explained that
HB 174 seeks to limit the tactic that has been used to try to
discourage development in the state. Alaska's permitting system
is used by various departments and resource managers to oversee
the myriad of projects throughout the state. He characterized
Alaska's permitting system as one of the most comprehensive in
the world that is used as a checklist to ensure that all the
municipal, state, and federal laws are followed. However, over
the years there have been many cases in which the development of
a project has resulted in a lawsuit in which the judge has
issued a stay. Therefore, the project is essentially put on
hold.
1:48:13 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE explained that HB 174 allows any permits already
issued for the activity, prior to the stay, to be placed on
hold. Most permits have a time period associated with them and
one tactic has been to obtain a stay on the permit and force the
company to continue to update the permit even while it can't
engage in the activity. He informed the committee that in the
process of review of HB 174 by applicable departments, a number
of issues/comments were raised and may require some tweaks.
However, all [the applicable] departments have indicated the
legislation is something they would like. Therefore, he hasn't
requested public testimony from the departments. Co-Chair Feige
announced that it will take a while for HB 174 to reach its
final form.
1:49:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to how much of a problem is
permitting at the state level as compared to the federal level,
for which there have been many delays. She then related her
understanding that if there is a lawsuit and a court issues a
stay, under HB 174 the time line remains valid. However, there
could still be revocations if the lawsuit is successful.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE replied that would be correct. For further
clarity, he pointed out that the permit is up to the permitting
agency to grant or not. If a state-issued permit is granted for
four years and only one year has passed when the stay is issued,
then three years would remain whenever the stay is lifted.
1:51:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to how problematic are
lawsuits and appeals at the state level. In discussing
challenges with permits and time delays with permits, she opined
that everyone is likely familiar with cases that deal with
federal permits. However, she inquired as to how much of a
problem it is at the state level.
1:52:18 PM
WYN MENEFEE, Acting Director, Division of Mining, Land and
Water, Department of Natural Resources, answered that there are
occasionally situations in which people are sued and it creates
delays. Depending upon the type of authorization given, the
permit or authorization may or may not be issued at the point of
the stay being issued. Typically, as the end of the stay is
reached, the department will extend the permits as the
department has the authority to do so. Under a disposal of
interest decision, the department wouldn't have issued the
authorization at the point of appeal, but by the time it reached
the conclusion court hearings, the department would [likely] be
at the point at which it could issue 25 years from that point
forward. With regard to delays, Mr. Menefee confirmed that
there are delays and there are delays because of lawsuits and
appeals.
1:53:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the reasoning behind a
time limit on the permit.
1:54:04 PM
MR. MENEFEE said that there are limits on all the department's
authorizations. For instance, permits issued under AS 38.05.850
have a maximum limit of five years since the permits are
supposed to be short-term in nature. However, long-term
disposal of interest, such as material sales and leases, can be
issued for longer periods of time. He attributed those longer
periods of time to the need for individuals seeking loans or
investments to make the project viable to have control of the
state land or the right of interest in order to ensure that any
investment can be amortized out.
1:55:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI acknowledged that the department already
does this administratively, and then questioned whether it needs
to be written in statute. Therefore, he questioned whether
there has ever been a time when HB 174 would've been of value to
the department as a permitting agency.
MR. MENEFEE clarified that he isn't going to say it doesn't need
to be done. However, he did point out that the department does
have situations in which the department has the authority to
adjust. There are cases, such as the Kensington Mine, in which
there is an existing authorization, the court implements a stay,
and a deadline is reached. He related a recent situation in the
North Slope in which the department extended the authorization
to deal with a deadline that arose. Mr. Menefee related his
understanding that HB 174, placing in statute [the department's
ability to deem valid activities authorized by a permit that
have been stayed by a court or administrative order], provide
surety that the extension would be granted versus the
possibility that the department would extend it. Furthermore,
placing this in statute sends those who might be suing for the
purposes of delay that there will be an extension granted.
1:56:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI surmised then that the department
extended the North Slope permit administratively through
regulations.
MR. MENEFEE responded yes, according to the department's
authority under AS 38.05.850. That North Slope permit was a
temporary authorization that went year to year. While under
delay, the department has the right to redo the terms. He
explained that the idea was trying to lease the parcels,
therefore the stay came due to the lease. However, the permit
was still valid and the department extended it to keep them
operating until a decision was made regarding the leases.
1:57:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI surmised that for large projects there
would be multiple permits from multiple agencies. How does the
division currently track all of these permits, he asked. He
further asked how the division would track each of the permits
it extends when there is a stay.
MR. MENEFEE answered that under a stay, the extensions would be
handled by each authorizing agency responsible for a particular
permit, which he understood the legislation to do as well. For
a large project that used the state's large project team under
the Office of Project Management and Permitting, then there
would be a project manager who would review it and coordinate
it. For those projects that don't use the division's
coordinating services, each individual entity it authorizes
would be responsible.
1:59:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether there is anyone else in
the state, other than those listed in HB 174, which authorizes
permits that should be added.
MR. MENEFEE pointed out that the location of the various
citations in HB 174 fall under different statutes that are used
by specific agencies. For instance, an oil and gas [permit]
falls under the jurisdiction of the Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission for an authorization for drilling. However, theirs
may not be the only authorization. There could be many
different authorizations required from different agencies. Mr.
Menefee clarified that it takes into account more agencies than
are listed in the proposed HB 174. Due to the definition of
"permit" outlined in the proposed statute, it does cast a broad
net that would apply to any entity that authorizes or provides a
certificate for those operations.
2:02:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked then if the use of the term
"permit" allows other agencies to take responsibility. Since
each section of the legislation addresses a different agency,
she questioned whether additional language is necessary. She
said she really likes HB 174, but asked if it should be
broadened to cover other areas.
CO-CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee that the sponsor has said
he will work on this legislation for some time.
2:03:08 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON then questioned whether this legislation would
also apply to municipalities that have [authorized] a permit.
MR. MENEFEE read the bill such that it would affect
municipalities and would have to adhere to the automatic
extensions as well.
2:04:27 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked whether HB 174 includes leases, such as
oil leases. He further asked if this legislation would lengthen
the term of an oil lease also or is the legislation speaking
strictly to an authorizing permit.
MR. MENEFEE, directing attention to the definition of "permit"
in Section 3, opined that it sets a very broad net. Therefore,
the legislation requires anything that needs to be obtained from
any state agency or municipality. The aforementioned means that
[this legislation would apply to] any authorization or
certificate that's required, and thus would include leases,
rights-of-way, material sales, and permits.
2:05:48 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON posed a scenario in which someone has an
expiring oil and gas lease, and asked if one of the partners of
the lease could file a suit and thus automatically extend the
lease if a stay was issued. Therefore, the lease wouldn't
return to the state, he surmised.
2:06:44 PM
CAMERON LEONARD, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Natural
Resources Section, Civil Division (Fairbanks), Department of
Law, confirmed that could be a possible interpretation of the
legislation since the term "authorization" is very broad.
2:07:28 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE interjected that there would still have be a stay
from the court or an administrative order in order to cease work
on the project. He asked if Co-Chair Seaton is talking about
the possibility of artificially extending a lease.
CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that he is just considering other
implications in terms of oil and gas leases that are issued over
a specified term under a specified plan and term of development.
He said that he's in favor of the concept of HB 174, but he
wanted to be sure there aren't unintended consequences.
2:08:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether HB 174 could also apply to
federal projects within the state.
MR. LEONARD answered that he didn't believe so because the
definition of "permit" doesn't reach that broadly. Furthermore,
the state doesn't have jurisdiction to effect the duration of a
federal permit.
2:09:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER requested examples of when the lack of
the provision proposed in HB 174 has adversely impacted a
leaseholder or permittee.
2:09:54 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 174 would be held over.
2:10:23 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:10 p.m. to 2:12 p.m.
HB 89-EXTRACTION OF BEDLOAD MATERIAL
2:12:28 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 89, "An Act authorizing the commissioner of
natural resources to offer bedload material for disposal for
flood control purposes in exchange for a percentage of the
profit from the sale of that material."
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt CSHB 89, Version 27-LS0334\B,
Bullock, 3/11/11, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion.
2:13:01 PM
LOUIE FLORA, Staff, Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State
Legislature, informed the committee that the differences between
Version B and HB 89 can be found on page 1, line 6, where the
language "approved flood control project" was changed to "site-
specific flood mitigation plan". The change was in response to
conversations with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
regarding the "flood mitigation project", which is usually a
federal term implicating the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in a
broader project. There are statutes under existing AS 38.05
that address federal flood mitigation projects, whereas this
legislation [aims to address] smaller scale site-specific
projects that would be approved by the commissioner of DNR.
Conversations with the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF) revealed their concern that the entire
statute could apply to their operations when they perform gravel
removal to protect their infrastructure. The DOT&PF didn't want
to bureaucratize their process. Therefore, on page 1, line 14
through page 2, line 1, the language "other than the state or
federal government or a political subdivision of the state" was
inserted in order to exempt DOT&PF from this statute. He
clarified that this statute applies to a private entity
performing the removal. Mr. Flora then pointed out the
conceptual amendment that makes changes to ensure that the state
infrastructure isn't impacted by the extraction, which can be
found in the committee packet.
2:17:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection.
There being no further objection, Version B was before the
committee.
2:17:38 PM
MR. FLORA explained that Version B would allow the commissioner
of DNR to make a finding based on the findings listed on page 1,
lines 8-13. Once those findings are complete, the commissioner
under a site-specific plan, would be able to offer bedload
material under navigable waters to be extracted by a private
contractor for approved flood mitigation projects. The main
problem with any extraction issue is that the state is bound by
statute to receive the fair market value for its bedload
material sales. He told the committee that the committee packet
includes a price listing of the fair market value [of bedload
material] statewide. The upfront fees that an extractor must
pay are quite high and inhibit the ability to extract the gravel
and resell it. Therefore, this legislation would allow the
extractor, under a site-specific plan, to extract the gravel,
net out the transportation extraction costs, and pay the state
no less that 12.5 percent of the profit. The general intent of
HB 89 is to alleviate flooding problems, providing financial
incentive for extractors to extract and sell the gravel. Mr.
Flora then directed the committee's attention to aerial slides
of bedload flooding. Generally, bedload flooding is when gravel
comes down during a sustained rain event and fills the stream
over time, which results in flooding.
2:20:10 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, referring to a photograph of Seward, explained
that so much gravel comes down the Resurrection River with its
low flow that it deposits and builds up such that sometimes
there are portions of the river that are higher than the
airport. Paying $3.25 per yard to take out the gravel, which is
paid upfront and can't be done as commercial use, creates a
problem. There is a similar problem in Valdez, he mentioned.
The purpose of HB 89 is to let the commissioner, in those cases
where there is bedload buildup, determine that the state is
receiving extra value by mitigating floods for which it will
have to pay in terms of emergency services and damages to
airports and roads. The legislation would allow the department
to hold an alternative sale of which the state will receive a
minimum of 12.5 percent of the net profit of the sale. The
aforementioned would allow businesses to remove this material,
which would save the state money in the long term. Co-Chair
Seaton then displayed various slides that illustrate the
situation in Seward.
2:23:49 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked if the commissioner gets to pick the site;
that is the sale is preemptive in nature.
CO-CHAIR SEATON responded that is correct. He explained that
under HB 89 a contractor or someone with a project that has a
bedload would apply to the commissioner. The commissioner would
then have to make the findings [outlined in the legislation] and
determine whether it would be beneficial and provide enough
added value to the state in flood mitigation. Nothing in the
legislation restricts or expands the department's ability to let
gravel extraction now. Currently, people can apply to DNR, but
they have to pay $3.50 per cubic yard. That $3.50 per cubic
yard is high enough that commercial entities aren't applying for
it because it doesn't make financial sense. The legislation
aims to avoid the state having to use state equipment during a
flood to maintain a channel, rather it would be performed over
time with the state as a partner that takes a minimum of 12.5
percent of the profit.
2:25:15 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked if the all findings listed on page 1, lines
8-13, will apply or will one finding apply.
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out the use of the term "and", which
means that all the findings must apply.
2:26:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI expressed the desire to obtain the best
value for the state's resources, including gravel. He then
inquired as how the legislation addresses the Compton case
regarding selling something for less than its value.
CO-CHAIR SEATON reiterated that the legislation allows part of
the value to the state, as determined by the commissioner, to
include the savings to the state in terms of flood mitigation
and offsetting costs the state will incur due to floods if the
gravel isn't removed. In response to Representative Kawasaki,
Co-Chair Seaton offered to contact Legislative Legal Services
for comment on Representative Kawasaki's concern.
MR. FLORA mentioned there is existing statute in AS 38.05 that
allows the department for flood control projects to provide
5,000 cubic yards free of charge and additional yardage at $.50
per cubic yard for political subdivisions. Therefore, there is
existing precedence in statute.
2:28:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK asked if there is anyone locally selling
gravel that would be adversely affected by selling it below fair
market value.
CO-CHAIR SEATON said that he couldn't answer that because this
situation could occur at several spots across the state.
However, he suggested that it's likely that those who currently
sell gravel would apply for this usage.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER interjected that for those who sell
gravel, the ability to purchase it at below market value would
be advantageous to them.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related his understanding that HB 89
offers a narrow application to mitigate disasters and doesn't
attempt to compete.
CO-CHAIR SEATON concurred.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE pointed out that to sell gravel it must be sized,
which requires various crushing and sorting equipment and
trucks. Therefore, Co-Chair Feige didn't view the legislation
as resulting in unfair competition. He characterized HB 89 as a
short-term source of inexpensive raw materials for [existing]
operators.
2:33:14 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, as
follows:
Page 2, line 8, following "state.";
Insert "The commissioner may request the plans
for bed load material extraction to be reviewed by a
professional engineer with relevant experience."
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion.
2:34:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding that
departmental staff would've already examined the area, and
therefore she surmised that this individual would've already
done something like this. Therefore, she questioned whether
department staff could perform this work at no cost to the
municipality [or the project].
CO-CHAIR SEATON said that the language on page 1, including the
findings, is general. A person applying to take and dispose of
bedload material will have a plan of development and extraction
and DOT&PF would like to ensure that it has been reviewed by an
engineer with relevant experience. Such oversight is desired to
ensure the state's structures aren't damaged as a result of the
removal of the bedload material. He did note, however, that
there could be situations in which the commissioner would
determine that review by an engineer isn't necessary. The
aforementioned could be the case when, for example, the area
[where the bedload material is being deposited] is in the middle
of a flood plain where there are no bridges or state
infrastructure and the desire is to merely have a channel.
2:37:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to who pays for the
aforementioned review by an engineer.
CO-CHAIR SEATON answered that it would be paid for by the person
wishing to extract the gravel. He clarified that he wouldn't
want to say that the departments have free engineers with
expertise in relevant areas.
2:38:30 PM
ROGER HEALY, P.E., Director/Chief Engineer, Division of
Statewide Design & Engineering Services, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities, paraphrased from the
following written remarks [original punctuation provided]:
The Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
is familiar with the challenges of containing the
waters and sediments of our rivers adjacent to our
transportation infrastructure. Whether it is flooding
of the Seward Airport or undermining of highway
embankments along the Haines or Glenn Highway, our
large braided glacial rivers have a high bed load of
sediment making the river hydrology unstable and
difficult to easily predict deposition areas and new
flow channels.
Our Department does not typically undertake upstream
or in-stream excavations adjacent to our bridges,
highways, or airports, but when we do so as a part of
our capital projects to protect new or expanded
infrastructure, the in-stream work is designed by
registered professional engineers specializing in
river hydrology.
Because our transportation infrastructure of highways,
airports, and bridges represent significant state
owned assets, the Department recommends to the
Committee that any in-stream work adjacent to or
upstream from the State's transportation or facility
infrastructure authorized through this proposed bill
be designed by professional engineers with relevant
experience. Our Department would encourage and
support coordination between the Department of Natural
Resources and our Department when removal of bedload
material is proposed near our transportation
infrastructure.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and if you
have any questions, I will be happy to answer them.
2:40:25 PM
MR. HEALY, in response to Representative P. Wilson, responded
that for work that is adjacent to highways and airports, DOT&PF
engineers will undoubtedly be involved in the review of the
plan. However, he pointed out that there is a liability
associated with the excavation. If there are associated impacts
to the excavation, then the operator should follow the guidance
of a professional engineer. Still, the department would have to
assess the impact of these projects because the engineers are
currently working on active projects. He pointed out that
doing the detailed discussion and analysis from a design
standpoint versus a review standpoint creates a different cost
impact to the department.
2:42:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that the state budget already
includes these [engineering] positions, and she opined that
DOT&PF shouldn't charge for this work.
2:43:23 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON surmised that if these engineers will have to be
available throughout the state, then there will likely need to
be another position to implement this. Due to the legislature's
work in constraining the number of personnel in the state
departments, involving department staff could result in
significant delays of projects. He noted that the gravel
operators thought the 12.5 percent of profit was reasonable and
acceptable. In further response to Representative P. Wilson,
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that the aforementioned is covered in
the [gravel operators'] plan of development. Co-Chair Seaton
further clarified that the person performing the project would
have to pay for the design of the project and the engineer's
review of the project.
2:45:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that someone from the state must
oversee this anyway and review the project, and therefore she
questioned why the state's engineers wouldn't be the ones to
review the plan.
CO-CHAIR SEATON echoed Mr. Healy's comment that from an
engineering standpoint there is a difference between designing a
project and reviewing another engineer's design.
2:46:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said that although these situations seem
to happen on an emergency basis, it would seem that one could
see the gravel building up. Therefore, removal of the gravel
could be arranged and sold prior to an emergency situation. She
opined that the language on page 1 of Version B would allow the
aforementioned. If that's the case, she inquired as to how the
cost would compare when it's not an emergency situation,
particularly in terms of the payment proposal in the
legislation.
CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that this isn't thought of as an
emergency situation, rather it's a situation in which when
bedloading is known to occur flooding is known to occur.
Furthermore, at $3.50-$5.00 per cubic yard no one will come in
to remove the gravel and maintain the stream bed. Moreover,
river bed gravel is suboptimal. The purpose of HB 89 is to
create a situation in which a commercial operation can exist.
2:48:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether DOT&PF would compete for this
gravel for its projects.
MR. HEALY explained that DOT&PF's gravel needs depend upon the
specific requirements of the project, and therefore some
projects would not be able to use river bed gravel. In general,
Mr. Healy said that DOT&PF probably wouldn't use river bed
gravel.
2:50:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection to Conceptual
Amendment 1.
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was
adopted.
2:50:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that he has been working on
similar legislation in which royalty oil could be sold below the
fair market value. However, the legislation ran into problems
regarding selling an item below the fair market value due to the
Compton case. He inquired as to how the Compton case would
impact HB 89.
2:51:32 PM
DONALD BULLOCK, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency,
directed attention to Article 8, Section 1 of the Alaska State
Constitution, which read:
Statement of Policy.
It is the policy of the State to encourage the
settlement of its land and the development of its
resources by making them available for maximum use
consistent with the public interest.
MR. BULLOCK explained that HB 89 addresses a unique situation
with regard to a flood mitigation plan. Under the plan, it's
sometimes the case that gravel needs to be removed. There is a
benefit to the state for offering the gravel for sale at a
reduced price in order to encourage someone to remove the
gravel. The aforementioned would avoid the state having to pay
someone to remove the gravel in order to prevent flooding and
improve the area. Therefore, both sides would benefit.
2:52:50 PM
PHILLIP E. OATES, City Manager, began by relating his support
for CSHB 89, Version B. To illustrate support the City of
Seward has enacted a similar resolution for gravel that is owned
by the city. He thanked Co-Chair Seaton for coming to Seward to
examine the problem and develop a solution. He noted that the
city has had at the borough level comprehensive meetings with
DNR to address this issue. This issue is important because
gravel is uneconomic unless produced in large quantities and the
cost of transport often makes it uneconomic for commercial
purposes. Furthermore, the additional state charge for removing
gravel from streams makes it uneconomic. He opined that the
issue revolves around the state receiving value for its
resources. However, HB 89, he opined, adequately and fully
compensates the state in two ways. The legislation provides the
state a profit akin to what it receives for selling its other
resources and provides protection from flooding. Therefore, the
legislation prevents the state from having to assist after a
[flood] disaster happens. He opined that the legislation allows
communities/boroughs to remove the gravel at no cost to it,
allows the contractor to make a small profit, and provides
benefits to the state in terms of profit and flood prevention.
Mr. Oates then expressed the importance of validating [the plan]
through appropriate engineering as well as for it to be for
flood mitigation purposes. He opined that when the
aforementioned requirements are met it would be a win-win
situation.
2:56:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, referring to the definition of
"bedload material" on page 2, line 12 of the legislation, asked
if the definition of "bedload material" includes sand or
sediment.
CO-CHAIR SEATON answered yes.
2:56:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI related that he thought the legislation
dealt with displaced gravel after a flood. Is that the case, he
asked.
CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that the legislation refers to
material that deposits over time when there isn't a flood. This
material builds up over time such that when there is a high
water event there is no streambed left and the bedload material
causes a flood.
2:57:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON recalled the river braiding that looks
mostly to be sand, which occurs in the Tok area. She asked
whether the proposal in HB 89 would work in that situation.
CO-CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee that this legislation
would address areas where the commissioner has made the findings
that there is a flood mitigation plan.
2:58:46 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 89 would be held over.
HJR 8-OPPOSE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED SALMON
2:58:54 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8, Urging the United States Food and
Drug Administration to deny an application to sell genetically
engineered salmon in the United States; urging compliance with
the provision of P.L. 110-85 (Food and Drug Administration
Amendments Act of 2007) that requires the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration regarding
a report on environmental risks associated with genetically
engineered seafood products; and urging that product labeling
requirements include the words "Genetically Modified"
prominently displayed on the front of the package if the
application is approved by the United States Food and Drug
Administration. [Before the committee was CSHJR 8(FSH).]
3:00:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, speaking as the sponsor HJR 8,
explained that the resolution is a statement to the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) and Congress that urges the FDA to
deny the application before it to sell genetically engineered
salmon. There is a proposal from a company for a hybrid
Atlantic salmon, which could be the first genetically engineered
animal for human consumption in the U.S. He opined that there
hasn't been enough due diligence at the FDA and it would
establish a risky precedence to allow the sale of these
genetically modified salmon. He reminded the committee of the
farmed fin fish from British Columbia, Canada, that have
traveled into Alaskan waters. There is no knowledge regarding
what will happen with this genetically modified salmon, which is
an Atlantic salmon with the growth genes of a king salmon and an
anti-freeze gene of an eel. He characterized this salmon as
"frankenfish" and stressed that science needs to be done before
approving it as food for human consumption. He noted that
Representative Herron offered an amendment in the House Special
Committee on Fisheries that the committee was unable to address,
but which could be considered in this committee.
3:00:39 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that HJR 8 would be held over.
3:01:11 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:01 p.m.