Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/09/2001 03:43 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
February 9, 2001
3:43 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator John Torgerson, Chair
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Pete Kelly
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Drue Pearce, Vice Chair
Senator Robin Taylor
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Status Briefing: Donald H. Carlson et al. vs. State of Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission by:
Mr. Steve White, Assistant Attorney General
Mr. Brad Pierce, Economist, Office of the Governor
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6(RES)
Relating to opposition to the inclusion of national forests in
Alaska within former President Clinton's Roadless Area Conservation
rule and supporting the overturning of this inclusion by
litigation, by congressional action, or by action of President
Bush.
MOVED SCS CSHJR 6 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
HJR 6 - No previous action to consider.
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Peggy Wilson
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau AK 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 6.
Ms. Rachel Moreland
Alaska Forest Association
111 Stedman St., Ste 200
Ketchikan AK 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 6.
Mr. Dick Coose
P.O. Box 9533
Ketchikan AK 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 6.
Mr. Joe Sebastian
Prince of Wales Island, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 6.
Ms. Corrie Bosman
P.O. Box 6157
Sitka AK 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 6.
Mr. Don Mueller
Old Harbor Books
P.O. Box 1042
Sitka AK 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 6.
Mr. Mark Rorick
Sierra Club
1055 Mendenhall Peninsula Blvd. Rd.
Juneau AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 6.
Mr. Jan Konigsberg
Alaska Salmonid Biodiversity Program
Trout Unlimited
7511 Labrador Circle
Juneau AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 6.
Mr. Pat Veesart, Executive Director
Sitka Conservation Society
P.O. Box 6193
Sitka AK 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 6.
Ms. Katya Kirsch, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC)
419 Sixth St, #329
Juneau AK 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 6.
Ms. Sue Schrader
Alaska Conservation Voters
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau AK 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 6.
Mr. Darrell Thomas
Aide to Senator Taylor
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau AK 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 6.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-10, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN JOHN TORGERSON called the Senate Resources Committee
meeting to order at 3:43 p.m. and said they would hear an overview
of the Carlson case dealing with the differential between the
license fees for residents and non-residents.
MR. STEVE WHITE, Assistant Attorney General, said the lawsuit
originally filed in 1982 by six non-resident commercial fishermen
who claimed that the state's fees it charges for non-resident
limited entry permits and commercial fishing crew member licenses
violate two clauses of the federal Constitution. The statute that's
being challenged has been a state policy since 1978. It requires
that the Entry Commission charge non-residents three times what
they charge a resident for the same permit. The permits have to
reflect the different rates of economic return for the different
fisheries and there are five different ranges of limited entry
permit fees. They range from the least valuable $50 resident/$150
non-resident up to $250/$750.
The other statute at issue is the one that charges non-resident
crew members $65 more than resident crew members. That is not as
significant in terms of economic implications as the limited entry
permits, Mr. White said. The legal issue before the courts is how
much more can the state charge non-resident commercial fishermen
than resident.
MR. WHITE said that the case became a class action lawsuit of about
11,000 non-resident commercial fishermen. About seven years after
the case was first filed, the state won summary judgment at the
trial court. Superior Court Judge Hunt held that the state's fee
schedules were constitutional.
MR. WHITE said that the two provisions of the U.S. Constitution
that are being challenged are the Commerce Clause, which generally
states that the states cannot interfere with interstate commerce
and the second, more important one is called the Privileges and
Immunities Clause which generally only applies to situations where
both residents and non-residents are pursuing important
constitutional rights like the right to pursue a vocation. He
explained that this means that states have to treat residents and
non-residents substantially equal. However, there are some ways
states can charge non-residents a little bit more.
MR. WHITE explained after the state won the first round, it was
appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court in 1990 and the trial court
decision was sent back with ways to determine how much more a non-
resident can be charged. The Court said they have to be treated
with substantial equality except that the state can take into
consideration the expenditures it makes for services it provides
like commercial fishing management services. The state can take
into account the amount that's paid for those services by residents
through taxes that only residents pay. The Supreme Court said that
Alaskans don't pay any broad based taxes to support state services.
However it does contribute the residents' oil revenues into the
state budget and pays for all the services including commercial
fisheries. The Supreme Court rationalized that the state could take
into account the oil revenues that pay for commercial fisheries and
allocate those to the residents and through a formula, the state
could determine how much to charge a non-resident.
MR. WHITE said the case went back to Trial Court and the formula
was litigated for five more years and had no precedent. In 1995,
they won summary judgment before Trial Court (before Judge
Michalski). This was again appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court
which again reversed the Trial Court saying that their formula was
how much the state could charge non-residents.
The formula says that the maximum permissible fee for a non-
resident permit or license is the same fee as a resident permit or
license and in addition a "surcharge" could be added based upon the
following: Take the amount the state spends on commercial fisheries
each year and divide it by the Alaska population and that is the
number that each Alaskan contributes to commercial fisheries each
year from the budget. Then, if you put in a factor, which is a
percentage of the state budget from oil revenues ratcheting that
down to just the amount the residents pay for the services that
non-residents don't pay, you then come up with the number which is
the maximum amount of the difference that can be charged a non-
resident for that year from that charged to a resident.
MR. WHITE explained that the third handout is a description of the
lawsuit and included an example. The Supreme Court held that the
Commerce Clause does not apply to this case; only the Privileges
and Immunities clause applies. The class attempted to have that
decision reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court which did not take it
up.
The problem with the state's calculation in 1996 is a factor using
the number of commercial fishermen in the state as a divisor. The
Supreme Court said no, that they had to use the entire population
of the state theorizing that everyone in the state contributes
something towards commercial fisheries management from their oil
revenues. The Supreme Court said to go back and put a different
number in and that's what they have been litigating ever since
1996.
Since then, they have been litigating in two different areas, Mr.
White said. One is if there are refunds due to non-residents, how
would they deal with them. Would they have to pay prejudgment
interest, for example? The Superior Court ruled that they have to
do that. The state will appeal that issue to the Alaska Supreme
Court the next time.
The state also argued that the class action is not an appropriate
vehicle for this kind of lawsuit and the Superior Court held that
it was. The state argued other legal issues dealing with refunds
which they will appeal, also.
MR. WHITE said that another thing they have been litigating which
culminated in the trail last summer in Anchorage before Judge
Michalski is what expenditures the state can include in that budget
over the past 19 years. The Department of Law came up with six
different categories of expenditures and presented those to the
Court through various expert economists and tried to identify as
many expenditures that are reasonably related to commercial
fisheries management. The first category was the operating budget
costs to the state including things like salaries. The second
category was an overhead factor which includes support services
like secretaries. The Superior Court ruled those were appropriate
costs. The Court rejected the other four categories which involved
things like the state's capital budget expenditures supporting
commercial fisheries, harbors, and hatcheries (amortized). A
calculation done at the University of Alaska Anchorage projected
what the loss of population would be if the commercial fisheries
industry was not present in Alaska. They determined about 9 - 10
percent of the population would probably not be here. The state
took that factor and applied it to all the general infrastructure
costs to the state like roads, hospitals, highways, etc. and
theorized that if the commercial fishing industry were not here,
then they wouldn't have those costs. The Trial Court would not let
them include those costs, either.
Another category that the Court rejected was the hatchery loan
subsidy that the state provides to hatcheries at a below-market
rate. Another category was the opportunity cost to the fish. The
state did not take the common property resource and give it to the
fishermen to extract the value and how much is that value and the
cost to the state.
The Superior Court rejected four of the six categories, but allowed
the state's argument based on a figure he pointed out on their
presentation. The state ran the figures for FY 96 as a sample and,
had the Superior Court allowed all those cost categories, the
permissible differential would have been $570. "Because the
Superior Court knocked out four of the six, the permissible
differential for that year was only $155."
MR. WHITE said the state took that $155 differential and calculated
how much would be owed for that one year, plus interest. The total
was $1.4 million. Since then, he has been trying to move the case
through the Trial Court to get a final judgment so that he could
take it up to the Alaska Supreme Court and appeal all the issues
that were found against the state (budget, interest, and class
action qualification issues).
A final judgment from the Trial Court includes a calculation of the
total principal and interest that the state owes for all 19 years.
He anticipated those figures would be ready by mid-March. The Court
will enter a final judgment and then be set to appeal. The law
requires the state to notify as many non-residents as they can and
tell them they may have a refund due and get current addresses.
MR. WHITE said the appeal would probably happen this summer and
they will then do a briefing and the Supreme Court will have the
case in the fall ready for a decision. When the Superior Court
announces the final judgment, there will be a figure of around $30
million and there will be press coverage. He assured the committee
that wasn't the final figure and that it just sets the stage for
appeal. He felt they could reduce the figure significantly and
predicted they would know in another year.
Number 1100
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if the 11,000 class action members
included crew member licenses.
MR. WHITE answered that was just limited entry permit holders. It
probably won't affect crew member licenses.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if he understood correctly that Mr. White
was not going to recommend making any payments off the lower court
ruling because he would appeal right away and there wouldn't be any
payments due this fiscal year.
MR. WHITE said that was right.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if he felt confident about the higher
court accepting the hatchery and capital budgets or at least some
of the four issues being overturned.
MR. WHITE replied that he thought they could make a really good
case that the capital expenditures clearly support and benefit
commercial fisheries - over 90 percent of hatchery fish are caught
by commercial fishermen. He felt confident about the capital
expenditures. The overhead cost factor based on population decrease
depends on expert witnesses and the other side had an expert
economist from Florida who said if the state didn't manage
commercial fisheries, the federal government would; so there would
still be commercial fisheries. He felt pretty comfortable about
hatchery loan subsidies. The last one, "the opportunity cost is a
pretty esoteric economic theory that may or may not…"
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said he thought harbors was a good one.
MR. WHITE agreed and said they have figures on how many slips in
each harbor on an average are occupied by commercial fishing
vessels. If you take the cost of the harbor and take that
percentage, you can assume that portion of the harbor expenses
supports the industry.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if they are deducting federal funds from
these figures.
MR. WHITE answered that they are including all funds.
MR. BRAD PIERCE, Economist, said they are using total funds and all
money that's appropriated by the legislature.
SENATOR HALFORD pointed out that the core money is not run through
the state budget.
SENATOR ELTON said, "It's an interesting proposition we have here.
If we spent more money to fix up our harbors and ports, we'd have a
better defense in court."
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if they are recommending any statute
changes at this time.
MR. WHITE answered that he thought an appropriate change would be
to amend the statute that provides the three to one ratio, because
the Supreme Court has said it's a dollar amount that's based upon
the formula and the amount varies from year to year. He said the
formula is not being challenged at this time and flows from a U.S.
Supreme Court decision.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if we are using the proper formula now.
MR. WHITE answered that the three to one puts the state in the
position of having to do refunds based upon the factors the
Superior Court gave them which varies from year to year.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if it would have to be adjusted every
year.
MR. WHITE said he didn't think it would have to be a yearly
adjustment if regulation could set the fees for a few years.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if he was suggesting there should be a
specific amount or can they say "shall not exceed a blank amount."
MR. WHITE recommended that Limited Entry and ADF&G can charge non-
residents an additional amount or surcharge to the maximum extent
established by law and give the agencies the regulatory authority
to work the formula on a regular basis and add that amount to the
fees and license schedules.
SENATOR HALFORD asked which court changed the denominator in the
formula from Alaska fishermen to Alaska population.
MR. WHITE answered the Alaska Supreme Court in 1996.
SENATOR HALFORD said he didn't think that was a reasonable
interpretation.
MR. WHITE responded that when they used just fishermen as the
divisor, the state won hands down, but when the Supreme court said
to use the state's entire population, that reduces the figure.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if anything could be done to rehear that
question with new findings at the Supreme Court level.
MR. WHITE answered that the next time this case goes to the Alaska
Supreme Court, particularly with the dollar figure attached to it,
and they look at what the actual refunds are going to be and that
compared to other states we have a low differential, they may
reexamine the whole premise. Their 1996 rationale was tight that
that should be the case.
SENATOR HALFORD said he thought it was pretty unreasonable to think
that a one-year or one month old child gets the same benefit out of
fishery management as a full time commercial fisherman.
SENATOR ELTON said he was bothered that this logic could be applied
to a lot of different situations like big game tags or sport
fishing licenses. He asked if we are vulnerable elsewhere.
MR. WHITE answered that we aren't vulnerable in licenses and
permits and management practices that involve sport hunting and
sport fishing, because the Privileges and Immunities Clause only
applies where you have a fundamental constitutional right and the
Courts have said that applies in this case with a vocation at
stake.
SENATOR ELTON asked if this could apply to commercial truck
licenses that are crossing the border.
MR. WHITE answered yes and it might also apply to guiding licenses.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if another action would have to be brought
to broaden the issue further.
MR. WHITE answered yes.
SENATOR HALFORD noted that, "It's interesting that a non-resident
guide is required to buy a hunting license to be able to guide. A
hunting license has an unacceptable differential while the guide
license doesn't. But you have to have both licenses to operate. We
lost years ago not allowing non-residents at all. So we've lost
piece by piece by piece on that."
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON thanked them for joining the committee today and
said they would watch the situation closely.
HJR 6-ROADLESS POLICY
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON announced HJR 6 to be up for consideration.
Number 1700
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, sponsor, said HJR 6 opposes the
inclusion of Alaska's Tongass and Chugach National Forests in the
Roadless Policy and wants to overturn it. The Tongass and the
Chugach Land Management Plans have cost many millions of dollars.
The Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) has already been in effect
for over 11 years costing $13 million and countless hours. The
Chugach took 3 years. They were led to believe the national forests
in Alaska wouldn't be included in this program.
MS. RACHEL MORELAND, Alaska Forest Association, said they strongly
supported HJR 6.
MR. DICK COOSE, Ketchikan resident, said he has lived in Southeast
Alaska for 20 years and has hunted and fished on the Tongass and
the roads and clear cuts are very useful for those activities. He
is retired from the Forest Service after 34 years of service. He
assured them that the Tongass was not as bad off as the
preservationists put it.
MR. JOE SEBASTIAN, Prince of Wales Island, said that is the most
heavily, densely roaded space anywhere in Alaska outside of
downtown Anchorage. He strongly supported the Roadless Policy and
the inclusion of the Tongass and the Chugach in it. He also defends
the concepts of the Tongass Land Management Plan. "The Roadless
Policy embarks on a new era and a new moral consciousness
concerning natural tracts of land still left to us and calls a halt
to industrial exploitation of nature."
MS. CORRIE BOSMAN, Sitka, opposed HJR 6 and supported the
application of the Roadless Policy to the Tongass and the Chugach
National Forests. She didn't think the legislature understood the
policy after speaking with Representative Wilson who, she thought,
was very misinformed. She thought the policy was a complete ban on
any new road construction and that's not true. "This policy only
applies to areas that are currently inventoried as roadless. There
will still be road construction permitted outside of those areas in
both the Tongass and the Chugach." She said that people in Sitka
and other communities in southeast Alaska who participated in the
Management Plan process overwhelmingly showed support for this
application to the Tongass. She said, "I am appalled at the way
both Governor Knowles and the Forest Service has been handling
this. This was lawfully signed into law. It has been disregarded.
These are federal lands. They need to be managed on behalf of
people here in Alaska, but also all the other people throughout the
nation that these lands belong to."
MR. DON MUELLER, Manager, Old Harbor Books, Sitka, said he strongly
supported including Alaska in the National Roadless Policy. He
thought it was wise for the long-term economics of Southeast
Alaska.
Number 2400
MR. MARK RORICK, Sierra Club, said he lived in Juneau for 30 years
and didn't think he could change their minds within this forum, but
he said there had been much misinformation about the Roadless Area
Conservation Rule. He gave an example of the Cholmondeley [east
Prince of Wales Island] timber sale, a 35 million board feet timber
sale in the Mackenzie roadless area on Prince of Wales Island.
Since the EIS came out before the rule, the sale went forward. "It
targets the best low elevation, high volume, old growth stands. The
sale units followed stream valleys up three of the areas most
productive water sheds and constructs 23 miles of road and crosses
the stream 63 times. Many of the road segments are steep and prone
to land slides. The drinking water supplies of the residents of
Sunny Cove, Clover Bay, and Saltree Cove are jeopardized. Two lodge
businesses that contribute more than $2 million per year to the
Ketchikan economy are being put at risk."
TAPE 10, SIDE B
MR. RORICK said, "With this sale, the Forest Service has ignored
the recommendations of the interagency biologists when establishing
the old growth reserves called for by the forest plan[TLMP] and
opted for getting the maximum ASQ out at the expense of the areas
wildlife."
MR. JAN KONIGSBERG, Alaska Salmonid Biodiversity Program of Trout
Unlimited, opposed HJR 6. He said that Trout Unlimited supported
the roadless conservation policy. He didn't want to talk them out
of the current resolution so much as to oppose its current
language. He suggested it be amended in favor of some balance with
respect to the system that is already roaded in the National
Forest, particularly in the Tongass.
MR. KONIGSBERG said he thought it was the state's responsibility in
terms of salmon production to ensure there is good fish habitat.
There has been more than 20 years of recognition in the Tongass, in
particular, that there is a fish passage problem with the roads and
culverts. After more than 40 years of industrial logging, there has
been some reduction in fish production. That should really be
addressed first. "Support of litigation for new roads seems to me
to be a bit one-sided unless there is an equal demand to first fix
the old roads. It makes good sense. It's good housekeeping."
MR. KONIGSBERG had draft language he had presented to the committee
on this issue.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON thanked him, but said that he is not in favor of
amending this resolution to talk about something other than what
it was designed for. He would support a resolution that told the
feds "to clean up their act on areas that you have identified of
culverts not letting the fish through and other things. That's just
good sound business practice."
MR. PAT VEESART, Executive Director, Sitka Conservation Society,
said he was very involved in organizing to build public support for
the Roadless Policy. He has had the opportunity of talking to
hundreds and hundreds of Alaskans and thousands of visitors to
Alaska about the Roadless Policy and was overwhelmed by the level
of public support for it. The committee is being asked to pass a
resolution that is against the public will he said. The Roadless
Administrative Rulemaking process was a highly publicized, very
public process that was open to everybody. It was nation-wide with
617 hearings with 39,000 Americans attending those hearings; 1.6
million Americans commented on it. Over a million of those people
favored the rule and favored inclusion of the Tongass. It was the
largest public process in the USDA history.
After 17 hearings in Alaska, 62 percent of the people who spoke
favored the policy, 75 percent in Southeast Alaska's four largest
cities favored the policy. Local forest planning is always subject
to change in the national policy that is brought about by a change
in public attitude about how our national forests are managed.
"This process was exemplary and it was open to everyone…It is
exactly how policy should be made in a democracy."
MS. KATYA KIRSCH, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Conservation
Council (SEACC), said she has lived in the region for 25 years and
has seen a lot of clear cutting. In the last decade, she has seen a
much more diverse economy, including a huge growth in tourism,
recreation industries, high businesses, fishing, and a lot more.
She said, "It's time to stop looking backward to recreate the
economy that chews our landscape for the gain of just one industry.
Our region's largest industries depend on a healthy Tongass
National Forest. While employment in the timber industry has been
declining, there have been increases in tourism, recreation,
construction, health care, and other parts of the economy….This
decision is not about closing down any of the nearly 5,000 miles of
road that currently exist on the Tongass. It is about managing
those valuable wild lands for multiple use that are now roadless
for purposes such as hunting, fishing, subsistence, recreation, and
tourism."
MS. KIRSCH commented that 50 percent of the timber from the Chumley
sale is going out as round logs, red and yellow cedar, exports. The
Finger Mountain timber sale which is in a roadless area near
Tenakee is abounding in spawning salmon, but the reason for that
sale is to target on round export of cedar. She asked who is
benefiting?
She said according to the Tongass Road Conditions Survey Report
released in June 2000, two thirds of the culverts crossing salmon
streams provided inadequate fish passage and eighty five percent of
the culverts crossing trout streams provided inadequate fish
passage. "Out of an estimated $20 million backlog to fix more than
700 of these culverts that are blocking safe fish passage, the
Forest Service has been budgeting only about a half million dollars
a year. At this rate it's going to take 40 years to fix current
fish passage problems on the Tongass."
MS. KIRSCH said, "The Alaska Legislature should call for sufficient
federal funding to fix these culverts providing jobs for Southeast
Alaskans and safe passage for wild salmon so important to our
commercial and sports fishermen."
MS. KIRSCH pointed out several errors in the "Whereas" section of
HJR 6. "The resolution claims that the forest products industry
contributes significant revenue to the local communities to the 25
percent revenue sharing provision in federal law. However, a new
federal law was passed last year that guarantees stable payments
for roads and schools to local forest communities. Under the new
statute, local governments will receive an annual payment
equivalent to the average payment of their three highest years of
timber receipts over the past 15 years. Any reduction in timber
receipts on the Tongass will not reduce the amount of money
Southeast Alaska's communities receive for roads and schools."
MS. SUE SCHRADER, Alaska Conservation Voters, said the vast
majority of her members are frequent users of the Tongass and
Chugach National Forests for subsistence, recreational and
commercial activities. They have supported efforts by the U.S.
Forest Service to protect the roadless areas in these forests. She
listed the communities where there were hearings: Anchorage,
Girdwood, Seward, Cordova, Sitka, Ketchikan, Juneau, Yakutat, Kake,
Tenakee, Hoonah, Petersberg, Thorn Bay, Craig, Angoon, Gustavus,
and Wrangell. Over 1,000 people attended those hearings and 62
percent testified in support of including the Chugach and the
Tongass.
MS. SCHRADER said you could see proof of why so many people are
concerned about building roads when looking at Washington state and
the collateral damage that roads in their national forests have
caused - landslides, damage to salmon streams, problems with game
poaching, and increased risks of human caused fires. She concluded
by asking the committee to reconsider her information and not
support the resolution.
MR. DARRELL THOMAS, Aide to Senator Taylor, supported HJR 6 saying,
"The Southeast timber industry has suffered blow after blow in the
past few years dealt by the federal government. These blows were
fatal to two pulp mills, both major employers of Southeast Alaska."
He said that there are only a couple of saw mills operating today
and the loss of jobs has resulted in severe negative economic
impacts to much of Southeast Alaska. "The Roadless Area
Conservation Rule would deliver the final blow to an entire way of
life for thousands of people. Without roads, they have no access to
schools, stores, or even medical attention."
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said he had put together amendment #1 which
recognizes the President has taken an action to delay the Roadless
Policy for 60 days.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to insert amendment #1 on page 3, line 20. It
reads, "and WHEREAS the Alaska State Legislature expresses its
appreciation of the recent temporary delay for 60 days of the
Roadless Area Conservation Rule;".
SENATOR ELTON asked if the sponsor of the resolution supported the
resolution. Representative Wilson said that she didn't have a
problem with it.
There were no objections and the amendment was adopted.
SENATOR ELTON moved amendment #2 on page 1, line 8 to delete "the
25 percent". The reason is that last October Congress passed and
the President signed an alternative way to the 25 percent process.
The alternative ways allow communities in the Tongass to average
the high three of the last 15 years receipts. He thought most
communities in Southeast Alaska would use that method because it
would bring in a lot more money to them. Representative Wilson said
she didn't object to the motion. There were no further objections
and the amendment was adopted.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to pass SCS CSHJR 6 from committee with
individual recommendations.
SENATOR ELTON objected to say that he is very conflicted about this
resolution. He does not read the provisions of ANILCA the same way
the sponsor does. He said in 1976 as editor of the Juneau Empire,
he began writing articles to encourage the process of planning in
the Tongass National Forest. Most of the decisions that were made
were by politics and not necessarily by good management policy
which bothered him. He said we had come a long way since then. If
he had written a way of handling federal management decisions in
the Tongass, he would have ended up with a process remarkably
similar to the TLMP process. He feels the same now that 150 - 200
million board feet to be cut per year was a good number for the
Tongass - a significant drop from the existing cut. They came up
with "a process that was a wrenching divisive process that
eventually led to the TLMP process and through various amendments
to the TLMP process, to a cut figure in the neighborhood of 150
million board feet, right where I wanted to be 10 years ago." He
said he is bothered by a process that leads to an executive order
by any president that leads us to something that abrogates the TLMP
process that was very painful. He didn't know how he was going to
vote on this resolution when it reached the floor.
SENATOR ELTON told Chairman Torgerson that he appreciated the way
he had run the meeting on this issue that has divided people rather
than bringing them together.
There was no further discussion or objection and the bill passed
out of committee.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|