HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE February 19, 1996 8:12 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman Representative Ramona Barnes Representative John Davies Representative Pete Kott Representative Don Long MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Alan Austerman Representative Irene Nicholia COMMITTEE CALENDAR *HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 58 Relating to reauthorization and reform of the Endangered Species Act. - PASSED CSHJR 58(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HJR 58 SHORT TITLE: REFORM THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/12/96 2722 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/12/96 2722 (H) RESOURCES 02/19/96 (H) RESOURCES 8:00 AM, CAPITOL 124 WITNESS REGISTER JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 24 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4931 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 58 JACK E. PHELPS, Executive Director Alaska Forest Association, Incorporated 111 Stedman, Suite 200 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901-6559 Telephone: (907) 225-5114 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 58 PAULA EASLY, Board Member Alaska Resources Development Council Vice-Chair, Nationwide Public Projects Coalition 2134 Crataegus Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 274-6800 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 58 ED GRASSER, Lobbyist Alaskan Outdoor Council P.O. Box 2193 Mat-Su, Alaska 99645 Telephone: (907) 745-3772 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 58 SARA HANNAN, Executive Director Alaska Environmental Lobby P.O. Box 22151 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 463-3366 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 58 RON SOMERVILLE, Technical Consultant to House Majority Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 208 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2689 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 58 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 96-18, SIDE A Number 000 CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Resources Committee meeting to order at 8:12 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Green, Williams, Ogan, Kott, Barnes, Davies and Long. Members absent were Representatives Austerman and Nicholia. This meeting was teleconferenced to Ketchikan, Mat-Su, and Anchorage. A quorum was present. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that the agenda was HJR 58. HJR 58 - REFORM THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Number 100 JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green, was first to testify. He said the Endangered Species Act (ESA) passed in 1973, has been amended several times since that time through a reauthorization process. He said the ESA has been controversial since its inception and added that Congress has been trying to pass legislation reauthorizing the ESA since 1972. He said in 1995 Representative Pombo from California and Representative Don Young from Alaska introduced legislation, HR 2275, to pass ESA reform legislation. MR. LOGAN said, even those who are opposed to HR 2275, admit that the ESA needs overhaul. He said the ESA has received national attention due to its application with certain species including the Spotted Owl and the California King Salmon. He said only a small number of species have recovered or benefited as a direct result of being listed as endangered or threatened. He said, in recent years, major public opposition to the implementation of the ESA has created a major groundswell of support for ESA reform. Number 211 MR. LOGAN said private property owners have been impacted by overzealous agency implementation of ESA. Complaints by the public, impacted industries and local governments have prompted the federal agencies to make major administrative and policy changes affecting how the ESA is interpreted. Unfortunately, these changes came too little, too late and the general public no longer trusts the federal agencies to improve the ESA process. Number 255 MR. LOGAN said HJR 58 is intended to support the efforts of our Congressional delegation and other states in reforming the ESA. He said there are sections of HR 2275 that Alaskans would like to see altered, but that it is a good foundation from which to start the dialogue. He said, hopefully, Congress will continue their efforts to pass reauthorization this year or early next year. He concluded that HJR 58 simply indicates Alaska's strong support for that effort. Number 299 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT asked for the definition of a biological diversity reserve system. MR. LOGAN deferred the question to Mr. Somerville, as he could give a more precise definition. Number 352 JACK E. PHELPS, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association, Incorporated, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. He said the Association represents the forest products industry in Alaska, with more than 250 member companies across the state. MR. PHELPS read from a sponsor statement, "Thank you for introducing HJR 58 supporting the re-authorization of the ESA and supporting Congressman Young's effort to bring some balance to this important act. As you correctly state in your sponsor statement, Alaska has a great deal to lose if the ESA is not administered in a fair and balanced manner. The forest products industry, together with the other extractive industries in Alaska, is very concerned about the growing misapplication of the ESA, especially in the western states. "HJR 58 says the `the state of Alaska supports the basic concept embodied in the act to prevent the extinction of species.' The Alaska Forest Association echoes that position. However, we believe it is also important to protect humans and their interests in this world, and that when those interests conflict, some trade- offs may have to occur. We do not, for example, believe that it is acceptable for whole communities to be put out of work merely to provide absolute protection to a particular species in a particular place. In other words, the `distinct population segment' concept should be carefully reviewed. "The association also believes that the ESA should not be used as a means of taking private property without just compensation; a principle embodied in our United States Constitution. This country and this state were founded on the principle that no person should be deprived of life, liberty or the use of private property without due process of law. The authors of our state constitution considered this principle so important that they incorporated it into Article I, Section 7 of the state constitution. It is vital to the health of the forest products industry, not only in Alaska but across the country, that this principle be consistently applied in the implementation of the ESA. To that end, I urge you and Congressman Young to continue your efforts to restore some sense of fairness to the national effort to protect endangered animals. "Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this important matter. I would be happy to answer any questions you or the committee may have." Number 531 PAULA EASLY, Alaska Resources Development Council, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She added that she is also the Vice-Chair, Nationwide Public Project Coalition (NPPC), which consists, primarily, of cities, counties and special districts throughout the United States. She said this coalition is "pretty frustrated because they just cannot fulfill their statutory responsibility for building basic local, regional government infrastructure project." She said the biggest roadblock has been (indisc.), Clean Water Act, and the ESA. She said, (indisc.-- coughing) and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), we are following on those two federal laws. She added that Dr. Frank Dunkill (ph.), head of United States Fish and Wildlife Service and an officer of the NPPC until his recent death who felt that (indisc.--overlapping voices) Congressman Richard Pombo. "he saw that, firsthand, that the act simply wasn't potentially (indisc.--coughing) that it was making a huge dent in the economy and quality of people and city of this county. Number 634 MS. EASLY supported the passage of HJR 58 and said it would be useful in the effort that is occurring in Congress. She made a recommendation that on page one, line seven, in the discussion of cooperation among federal agencies, state fish and wildlife agencies, and private landowners, that "local government" should be included as it broadens the scope of those who are affected. Number 701 MS. EASLY said on line 13, she felt it should read, "Whereas the detrimental effects of the act on private landowners and regional economy," to broaden the concept. Number 724 MS. EASLY said on page two, line 14, she felt it should read, "an effective partnership with the states and community in the conservation of endangered species." Number 773 MS. EASLY cited an example of a habitat conservation plan which occurred in Riverside County. This county was supposed to set aside 45,000 acres for a kangaroo rat preserve. She said in order to accomplish that task, everyone buying land in the county had to pay $1,950 per acre rat fee. She said this fee went into a fund which bought land for the preserve. She said in eight years almost $30 million has gone into this fund which bought 8,400 acres. She said the agencies are now threatening that they will not issue an interim take permit. She said everyone convened to rectify the permit process, and now that the county is near the end of this process, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has told Riverside County that they want more land, which would cost $1.6 million. If this land is not bought, the county will not be granted a 30 year permit. On February 1, 1996, the Board of Directors of the Conservation Agency unanimously adopted a resolution which states, if the agency plans are not formed by May 7, 1996, and if the agencies ask for any more money, Riverside County will dissolve the whole process. She said this is an example where a local community feels lied to, misrepresented, mistreated and mislead by federal agencies. She said this example also represents the local governments and counties relationship to the process and how important it is that they have a role. Number 999 MS. EASLY said there is an opportunity this year to address private property protection. She mentioned another federal bill, by Senator Dole EB 605, which is a property rights protection bill. Number 1055 REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG asked her to repeat her suggestion for line 14, on page two. MS. EASLY said the local communities have an important part in the conservation plan and that they should be incorporated in equal standing during those negotiations. She referred to a court case in New Mexico, which determined that under the National Environmental Policy Act, federal regulations should encourage and allow joint planning between the federal agencies and the local government. Number 1191 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN expressed concern that if "and communities" were included its definition would be confusing. He said the problem with the ESA is that the language is open to conjecture and he didn't want to revise HJR 58 and have language open to conjecture. He added that the recommendation, Ms. Easly made on page one, was good. MS. EASLY defined communities as including "cities, boroughs, counties, whatever." She said HR 2275 supports the inclusion of communities. Number 1239 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked for clarification on some points regarding HJR 58 and was told that Mr. Somerville would answer those questions. Number 1268 ED GRASSER, Alaskan Outdoor Council, testified via teleconference from Mat-Su. He said his organization supports HJR 58. Number 1292 MR. LOGAN said the national biological reserve concept is an embodiment of Title 6, Section 601 of HR 2275. He said HR 2275 establishes the national biological diversity reserve which is comprised of the National Conservation System units. He said National Conservation System is defined as federally owned lands within the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, the National Wilderness Preservation System and some wild segments of rivers within the National Wild and Scenic River System. The secretary has, within 18 months of passage of the act, the power to nominate, to the biological diversity system, lands which he or she determines would contribute to the protection, maintenance and enhancement of biological diversity in accordance with the provisions of the act. He said, in his understanding of how it has been explained, that those units of federally managed and designated lands, that the Secretary of Agriculture believes would contribute to a biological diversity under HR 2275, would be under another classification such as scenic, or wildlife refuge, and also would be classified biological diversified. Number 1401 SARA HANNAN, Executive Director, Alaska Environmental Lobby, was next to testify. She said she opposed the passage of HJR 58. She said she wanted to draw the committee's attention to the contrast between the whereas clauses and the conclusions. She said at the outset we say that the state of Alaska is concerned (indisc.--paper shuffling) and that is why her organization concluded that there is no evidence that the ESA is a problem in Alaska. She said there are no resource industries who are in trouble with the ESA. She said the state of Alaska is doing many things to regulate the harvesting of timber that resemble actions taken by the federal government to restrict resource extraction. She said buffer zones that are required on private land, under state law, are parallel to things required by federal law in other states. She said this is an example of why sometimes it is in the government's best interest, at some times, to restrict private development. She urged the committee to think about it in the most conservative sense, if we don't protect anadromous streams, we don't know what the economic impact would be to the state of Alaska. She said the state is restricting private land owners use by placing a restriction of harvested timber in a buffer strip zone, but the state has collectively made a decision believing it to be good management. She said the state places many restrictions on private property. Number 1491 MS. HANNAN said the ESA, a regulation deemed important by the federal government, is important in philosophy. She made an analogy to being given an ark which encompassed a complex web of things in balance with each other. She said we are not sure where the medical breakthroughs of the twenty-first century are going to come from, but most of the twentieth-century breakthroughs were dependent on animal research and species discovery. She said it is short sighted to say that if those conflict with human use, we should side with human use. She said the most conservative and long range plan should be to make sure that we know everything before we decide to let it go. She said the science behind many species is not fully achieved. Number 1535 MS. HANNAN said the ESA is a federal law with an accompanying set of regulations that, like other federal laws, cause criticism. She said, when one policy is implemented over a vast nation, issues will arise where the policy comes out in ways that are not liked. She didn't feel that the ESA was failing. She added that she didn't feel that HR 2275 gets us to a resolution on the ESA which makes us better prepared to face the twenty-first century with new science. Number 1593 CO-CHAIR BILL WILLIAMS agreed that there is no endangered species being affected in the state of Alaska. He said HR 2275 will fix some of the problem areas within the ESA such as habitat conservation areas. He said, in Alaska, there are no endangered species, but habitat conservation areas were still required because there might-be species that are endangered. He said HR 2275 is trying to fix the might be situations. He said a reform of the ESA is needed. Number 1658 CO-CHAIR GREEN referred to information available in the committee packet which showed examples of where there have been abuses because of the ESA. He cited an example involving private ownership, where a eagle nest on private land required a buffer zone of 500 acres. He said the ESA causes private land owners to chop down a tree with an eagle's nest in it to avoid the ESA requirements, so the ESA reduces, rather than enhances, the benefits to endangered species. Number 1720 MS. HANNAN said she wished the Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Natural Resources were here to talk about how the ESA is being carried out in Alaska, and how the implementation is affecting our resource management. Number 1742 RON SOMERVILLE, Technical Consultant to House Majority, said his expertise and background involves work with the ESA. He said the ESA is not currently working as Congress intended it to do. He said there are some examples where it has worked and mentioned the Aleutian Canada goose which established its previous range and the Peregrine falcon. He said the problem with the ESA is a total inflexibility with how it is administered by the agency. He mentioned the policies adopted by Secretary Andrews and Secretary Brown in "response to their responsibilities" associated with the ESA. He questioned why policies were being formulated in an attempt to prevent a reform of the ESA. He believed there has been such a response because the ESA was enacted in 1972. Number 1846 MR. SOMERVILLE cited an example of the Southeast United States regarding woodpecker nests. He said private land owners chopped down these nesting trees on their property before anyone found out an endangered species was nesting in them. He said approximately 60 percent of the endangered species habitat is critically linked with private property. He said the federal government, through adoption of strict policies, could not save many of these species because of the private property issue. He said Secretary Andrews indicated that changes in dealing with private property owners, partly because of the Sweet Home (indisc.) the Supreme Court upheld the Secretary of the Interiors right to list critical habitat involving private property. He said more legislation, dealing with this issue, is being submitted by Congress. He said the western governors developed a consensus position on the ESA which called for major reform and incentives for private property owners. Number 1916 MR. SOMERVILLE said in Alaska if the ESA is not restructured, there will be problems in the future. He cited an example regarding a ground fishery and the impact it had on the Stellar Sea Lion. The state of Alaska intervened and it was ruled in favor of the ground fishery, but the judge who presided over the case indicated concern over whether or not the state was meeting the strict wording of the ESA. He said under the ESA, agencies have unfettered rights to declare species endangered or threatened, establish critical habitat areas and have the ability to regulate activities which potentially would impact those species. Number 1976 MR. SOMERVILLE cited an example regarding salmon. He said Alaska is being affected because of the abuses which occurred in the Columbia River system. He referred to the Snake River Chinook salmon and said Alaska takes a minuscule number of this salmon, but must take an incidental take from it because of the wording of the ESA. He said in the process of catching the healthy stocks of Alaskan and British Columbian king salmon, a permit must be obtained. He said the quota, under this permit, continues to go down. He said a judge ruled last year that Alaska must severely reduce their quota in order to halt the declining king salmon stocks which have been reduced in the Snake River area. Number 2004 MR. SOMERVILLE referred to the example Co-Chairman Williams cited, where two species were targeted on a petition, the Vancouver Island Goshawk and the Alexander Archipelago wolf as being endangered. He said the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) agreed to go ahead with a petition and do the review. He said the petitions should have been rejected outright because there was no chance that they would have prevailed in court. He said the US FWS explained biologically why those species were not distinct. He said a clear understanding is needed of the habitat and the correlating species number, specifically species that, in Alaska, are in the peripheries of their range. Number 2094 MR. SOMERVILLE said, of the 1500 endangered species on the list, very few have been removed from the ESA and this fact is targeted in HR 2275. He said, most people in Alaska would agree, that the language defining, "distinct population segments," needs to be changed. He again referred to the fact that you must know the habitats in order to be able to judge whether or not they should be on the ESA. He reiterated that strict controls are implemented once they are on this list, with little chance of the species going off the list. He cited an example regarding Steelhead numbers. He said this issue is stalemated in Congress. Number 2143 MR. SOMERVILLE said that from his perspective, the government would want to gather all information from various sources; the state, public, local communities regarding conservation plans, habitat plans, harvest regimes, species population assessment models to give the best possible information for decision making. He said this does not happen. He said the federal government dictates what needs to happen and that ruling must be followed. He talked about the different factors which could work in partnership with each other and cited an example of the grizzly bear in Montana. Number 2210 MR. SOMERVILLE said agencies need better scientific criteria, specified in the ESA, for listing and de-listing purposes. He said the United States supported, with societies convention, the provision which called for qualitative criteria for internationally listed species. He said if there was a better peer review the Vancouver Goshawk example would never have occurred. Number 2240 MR. SOMERVILLE mentioned the provision in the ESA requiring the state to give 60 days notice before they legally challenge the federal government. He said this provision means that the fishing period is over when the time period ends. He concluded that these points are addressed in HJR 58 and that he was available for questions. Number 2270 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked if certain groups were targeting particular activities using the ESA when it hasn't been justifiable. Number 2297 MR. SOMERVILLE said many environmental laws are interpreted differently by the courts than they are intended to solve. He cited the example of the spotted owl and other cases where issues have been tied up by unnecessary litigation. Number 2328 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked for the definition of private property in the ESA. Number 2335 MR. SOMERVILLE said there is no definition of private property in the ESA, private property would be any titled land. He said he could not answer whether that would be any non-federally owned land. CO-CHAIR GREEN said the implication he received from the ESA was that private property was any non-federally owned land. MR. SOMERVILLE agreed with that, but added that he was hesitant to state anything because of other legislation regarding private property. He said, in the other legislation, the interpretation has been titled land and said that would include state land. Number 2379 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said for the record that Representative Davies arrived "twenty minutes ago." REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked for clarification on page two, item eight on the list of resolves in HJR 58, and asked why it was important to eliminate the biological diversity reserve system. Number 2390 MR. SOMERVILLE said this issue was included by U.S. Representative Pombo in response to the private property issue. Representative Pombo said we have national park areas, national refuge areas, national wilderness areas and that the federal government should impose its standards on its own land first. He said the federal government put in a provision of the ESA which excluded these federal lands, labeled biodiversity of other lands as one of primary features and to manage it accordingly. He said the ESA should not be a biodiversity act. He said Alaska has 140 million acres of withdrawal, of which 90 million acres is refuges and parks. He said Alaska, when the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) passed, chose not to put in transportation and utility corridors, instead Senator Stevens included Title XI. He said a biodiversity inclusion would never allow the state of Alaska to receive a Title XI permit for a transportation system. He said Alaska received a lot of special considerations regarding its circumstances under ANILCA and if the biodiversity classification were implemented you would see a lot of changes being made by the Secretary of the Interior. He felt that Alaska would probably be targeted first to enact a biodiversity system. TAPE 96-18, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked about page 2, segment nine. Number 013 MR. SOMERVILLE said, in HR 2275, the basic principle is a demand for a prioritization process to target the species most endangered. He said HR 2275 requests better economic assessments, better scientific principles, and consideration of the long term interests of the public. Number 055 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES mentioned biodiversity, but then later clarified that he was asking about consideration of the public interest and how that could be implemented. Number 080 MR. SOMERVILLE said, under the HR 2275, the agencies would consider economic impact and this is a public interest issue. He said if the costs of aiding a particular species are so high, and the chances of recovery are so small, it might be better to appoint that same amount of money, $600 million to $700 million per year in regards to the Snake River Chinook salmon, to another endangered species. Number 137 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said the economic aspect appears to be incorporated into the previous phrase, "costs of implementation," in segment nine. He expressed concern over the vagueness of the language regarding the definition of the public interest. Number 155 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT referred to page three, segment ten, "requirement that recovery plans impose equitable burdens on affected entities," and asked for a definition of affected entities, who they would be and how it would be applied. Number 171 MR. SOMERVILLE said Alaska has been forced to limit their stocks of the Columbia River salmon which the fishermen feel that this has been an unequitable burden and affected entities "is just that." He said the area, which affects the change in the species, should pay the heavier burden through something like the incidental take quota. Number 226 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked, if the Canadians were an affected entity, how HJR 58 would apply. Number 248 MR. SOMERVILLE said HJR 58 would not apply to a foreign country, except in the methods the United States government can utilize such as negotiations or targeting trade. Number 279 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether the species itself would be considered in the definition of affected entity. MR. SOMERVILLE believed that the definition would only include human entities. Number 313 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt amendments on page one, add "local governments" on lines 8, 11, and "regional economies" on line 13 in HJR 58. Hearing no objection HJR 58 was so amended. Number 340 CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS made a motion to move HJR 58 as amended. Number 352 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected to the motion and proposed an amendment, on page two, lines 7,8, and 9, deleting the first, "resolve". He mentioned the fact that not all the committee members have read HR 2275 and added the difficulty of supporting legislation of another legislative body which can be altered in revisions. He said HJR 58 specifically addresses the issues of concern to Alaska. Number 404 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected to the proposed amendment. CO-CHAIR GREEN said HJR 58 states that HR 2275 needs to be enacted as a guide for ESA reform because it addresses issues of concern for Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES modified his amendment on page two, delete the "parenthetical using HR 2275 as the basis for the reauthorization legislation". Number 479 CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS said the HJR 58 asks Congress to proceed with reauthorization of ESA using HR 2275 as a basis for this reauthorization of legislation. He asked how the proposed amendment would affect HJR 58. Number 511 CO-CHAIR GREEN said he felt this proposed amendment would take away from HJR 58. He said he would encourage an objection to the proposed amendment and added that he planned to vote against it. Number 673 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he objected to the modified amendment. CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS discussed the legislative process and said at this time HJR 58 supports HR 2275 in its current form. Number 583 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he could not support all of HR 2275, but he could vote for a HJR 58 which regarded a specific reauthorization of the ESA. He said Congressman Young would most likely use HJR 58 to pass HR 2275. He said once HJR 58 was passed there was no way that it could be modified if HR 2275 was modified in a way that the legislature would no longer support. Number 664 A vote was taken on Representative Davies' amendment. Representative Davies voted yes. Representatives Long, Ogan, Williams and Green voted no. Representative Kott was absent for the vote. The amendment failed to be adopted by the House Standing Resources Committee. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES proposed an amendment on page two, delete lines 27 and 28. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS objected to the proposed amendment. Number 675 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said exempting Alaska from the biological diversity reserve system is too extreme a position to take. He said most biologists would testify to the importance of biodiversity and the importance of maintaining and enhancing it. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that Representative Barnes joined the committee meeting. A roll call vote was taken on the proposed amendment. Representative Davies voted yes. Representatives Kott, Long, Ogan, Williams, Green, and Barnes voted nay. The proposed amendment failed to be adopted by the House Standing Committee on Resources. Number 783 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES proposed an amendment on lines 30 to 31, page two, delete, "and the public interest". CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS objected to this proposed amendment. A roll call vote was taken on the proposed amendment. Representative Davies voted yes. Representatives Kott, Long, Ogan, Williams, Green, Barnes voted nay. The proposed amendment failed to be adopted by the House Standing Committee on Resources. Number 780 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT proposed an amendment, based on testimony by Mr. Somerville, on page three, line two, deleting the word, "entities" and inserting, "user groups". He said this clarifies the language. Hearing no objections Representative Kott's amendment was adopted to HJR 58 by the House Standing Committee on Resources. Number 818 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS made a motion to move CSHJR 58(RES) with individual recommendations. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected to this motion. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Barnes, Kott, Long, Ogan, Williams and Green voted yes. Representative Davies voted nay. The House Standing Committee on Resources moved CSHJR 58(RES) out of committee. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the House Standing Committee on Resources, Co-Chair Green adjourned the meeting at 9:20 a.m.