HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE March 1, 2000 2:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chair Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chair Representative John Harris Representative Carl Morgan Representative Ramona Barnes Representative Jim Whitaker Representative Reggie Joule Representative Mary Kapsner MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 290 "An Act relating to stranded gas pipeline carriers and to the intrastate regulation by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska of pipelines and pipeline facilities of stranded gas pipeline carriers." - MOVED CSHB 290(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 56 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska prohibiting certain initiatives relating to wildlife. - MOVED HJR 56 OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 403 "An Act requiring certain vessels to prepare and provide oil discharge prevention and contingency plans or to provide oil discharge prevention and contingency plans prepared in conjunction with a nonprofit association established for spill response and restoration purposes; and providing for an effective date." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 290 SHORT TITLE: STRANDED GAS PIPELINE CARRIERS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/14/00 1924 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 1/14/00 1924 (H) O&G, RES, FIN 1/27/00 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519 1/27/00 (H) Heard & Held 1/27/00 (H) MINUTE(O&G) 2/01/00 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 17 2/01/00 (H) Heard & Held 2/01/00 (H) MINUTE(O&G) 2/10/00 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 17 2/10/00 (H) Heard & Held 2/10/00 (H) MINUTE(O&G) 2/15/00 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 17 2/15/00 Text (H) -- Meeting Canceled -- 2/17/00 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 17 2/17/00 (H) Moved CSHB 290(O&G) Out of Committee 2/17/00 (H) MINUTE(O&G) 2/21/00 2251 (H) O&G RPT CS(O&G) NT 2DP 2NR 5AM 2/21/00 2251 (H) DP: PHILLIPS, WHITAKER; NR: GREEN, 2/21/00 2251 (H) BRICE; AM: DYSON, HARRIS, SMALLEY, 2/21/00 2251 (H) PORTER, KEMPLEN 2/21/00 2251 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 2/21/00 2252 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (REV, DNR) 2/21/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 2/21/00 (H) Heard & Held 2/21/00 (H) MINUTE(RES) 3/01/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 BILL: HJR 56 SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: WILDLIFE INITIATIVES Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/16/00 2206 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 2/16/00 2206 (H) RES, JUD, FIN 2/28/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 2/28/00 (H) 3/01/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 WITNESS REGISTER JOHN SHIVELY, Commissioner Department of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby Avenue, Fifth Floor Juneau, Alaska 99801-1724 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 290. REPRESENTATIVE CARL MORGAN Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 409 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 56. SANDRA MATTIE P.O. Box 18 Ester, Alaska 99725 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 56. PETE BUIST, Co-Chair Coalition for the Alaskan Way of Life P.O. Box 71561 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 56. WAYNE HEIMER, Board Member National Foundation for North American Wild Sheep 1098 Chena Pump Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 56. STANLEY NED Tanana Chiefs Conference Incorporated 122 First Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 56. PATRICK WRIGHT, President Scientific Management of Alaska's Resource Treasures P.O. Box 244001 Anchorage, Alaska 99524 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 56. NANCY HILLSTRAND P.O. Box 674 Homer, Alaska 99603 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 56. JOE MATTIE, Board Member Alaska Trappers Association P.O. Box 18 Ester, Alaska 99725 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 56. BILL HAGAR, Member of Executive Committee Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association 431 Gaffney Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 56. SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate Alaska Conservation Voters P.O. Box 22151 Juneau, Alaska 99802 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 56. DICK BISHOP, Vice President Alaska Outdoor Council 211 Fourth Street, Number 302A Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 56. WAYNE REGELIN, Director Division of Wildlife Conservation Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the ADF&G does not support HJR 56. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 00-17, SIDE A Number 0001 CO-CHAIR MASEK called the House Resources Standing Committee meeting to order at 2:10 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Hudson, Masek, Cowdery, Harris, Morgan, Barnes, Joule and Kapsner. Representative Whitaker arrived as the meeting was in progress. [The following comments pertain to HJR 53.] REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to an article in the Anchorage Daily News written by a Juneau correspondent, dated February 29, 2000, entitled "Wildlife is Food, Bill Says," which claims that Representative Barnes forced HJR 53 out of committee over Representative Hudson's objection. [See minutes for February 28, 2000.] She maintained that she does not remember Representative Hudson objecting to the resolution moving out of committee, but rather he stated that he had a concern. She indicated her understanding that he was going to address his concern in the House Judiciary Standing Committee, next committee of referral. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES also pointed out that it is common for a committee member to object, but it does not mean that the committee member necessarily objects to the bill moving out of committee; rather, the member wants his or her objection on the record. She stressed that she does not feel in any way that she forced HJR 53 out of committee. She also clarified that the words "enhanced" and "developed" were discussed at length by the committee with an attorney present. She stated that she believes the person who wrote the article owes an apology, because the committee worked at length on the issue. She stressed that she is very disappointed with the article. [End of discussion relating to HJR 53.] HB 290 - STRANDED GAS PIPELINE CARRIERS CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 290, "An Act relating to stranded gas pipeline carriers and to the intrastate regulation by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska of pipelines and pipeline facilities of stranded gas pipeline carriers." [The bill had been heard on February 21, 2000, after which it was assigned to a subcommittee chaired by Representative Barnes. Before the committee was CSHB 290(O&G). However, a proposed committee substitute (CS), version 1-LS1269\I, Chenoweth, 2/25/00, had been drafted.] Number 0447 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out that the [subcommittee] working group had consisting of herself, Representative Hudson and Representative Joule. They had agreed upon four amendments that are incorporated in the proposed CS. She read into the record the "issue, resolution and effect of amendment" for each of the four amendments: [Amendment 1]: In drafting the House Special Committee on Oil and Gas committee substitute, changes were made to the proposed amendment language, dropping the phrase, "that individually consume" and replacing it with "in which the consumption by customers is." Additionally, the phrase "and each request for service by a public utility" was also dropped. The resolution ... : Restoring the dropped phrases was agreed to by all working group members. These changes restore the language in the bill to conform with the original amendment language. Amendment 2: The Chairman of the House Special Committee on Oil and Gas introduced this section as an amendment, with the stated intention of providing explicit direction to the commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources to consider whether royalty oil or gas to be taken in kind may be necessary to meet present or projected intrastate domestic or industrial demand, and to require legislative approval, by law, before the commissioner takes any action toward the taking or disposal of royalty oil or gas. The resolution ...: The working group participants concur that CSHB 290(O&G), Section 1, language related to policy direction for the commissioner is duplicative of existing statutory requirements in AS 38.05.182 and AS 38.05.183(d). The working group participants also agreed that the language in part (b) has unintended consequences which could prohibit the DNR commissioner from performing any act related to the taking and disposition of royalties, including accepting state royalty checks from producers without an explicit act of law. This was agreed to be untenable, and the working group participants agreed to recommend that Section 1 of the CS [CSHB 290(O&G)] be deleted from the bill. Effect of the amendment: the amended language removes Section 1 from the current CS. Amendment 3: The administration believed the bill's original language modifying AS 38.35.120, the Right of Way Leasing Act, introduced unnecessary ambiguity regarding the state pipeline coordinator's office's oversight of the LNG plant and marine terminal. Additional concerns had been raised by the Yukon Pacific Corporation that the bill's original language in this same section would, in some way, prejudice their existing right-of-way lease for the Anderson Bay site. The sponsor group concern: The sponsor group's intent in the bill's original language was to exclude the LNG plant and marine terminal only from the common-carriage covenant requirement under the Right of Way Leasing Act, and not to modify any current existing regulatory oversight or to affect any existing right-of-way lease. Resolution: The Department of Law has drafted language which resolves the concern to the satisfaction of all parties - the Administration (SPCO), the sponsor group and the Yukon Pacific Corporation. The amended language removes the requirement for the LNG plant and marine terminal to be in common carriage under the Right of Way Leasing Act, without affecting the SPCO's delegated authority under the Act, thus Amendment 3. Amendment 4: The Section 8 language. The issue is the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) believes that intrastate tariffs for the gas pipeline should be calculated utilizing the tariff methodology from the Pacific Utilities Act (42.05), which is a different methodology than that provided for by the Pipeline Act (AS 42.06). According to the RCA, a utility rate- making methodology will result in more affordable tariffs for the intrastate transportation of gas than will the Pipeline Act rate-making methodology. The sponsor group concern: The sponsor group believes that this requirement creates a regulatory hybrid which reduces the clarity and certainty intended in this legislation. The underlying statutory requirements for tariffs under both the Public Utilities Act and the Pipeline Act are the same. AS 42.05.381(a) under the Public Utilities Act and AS 42.06.370(a) under the Pipeline Act both impose the identical requirement that tariff rates be "just and reasonable." The sponsor group believes the appropriate time for the detailed determination of what should or should not be allowed in an intrastate tariff will be when filed tariffs are before the RCA for its consideration as to whether they are just and reasonable. This section of the bill needlessly creates uncertainty about the intended regulatory regime. ... [Resolution]: The working group could not reach a consensus on this particular amendment; ... therefore, it has been removed from the bill. And I believe that the whole question of any detailed tariff methodology in this piece of proposed legislation is premature at this time. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said the focus of this legislation is and should continue to be the removal of commercial regulatory impediments to the successful marketing of LNG for export to the Asian market and in-state use. The original legislation was purposefully kept simple and targeted to those things that needed to be changed for the project to be taken seriously in the marketplace. She concluded: We did not try to address all the various issues which will ultimately come up if we have a project, nor could we, at this point; it's simply too early. Thus, those are the reasons for the four specific amendments, which are contained in the proposed CS before you. Number 1035 CO-CHAIR HUDSON made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for HB 290, version 1-LS1269\I, Chenoweth, 2/25/00, as a work draft. There being no objection, it was so ordered. CO-CHAIR MASEK thanked the working group. CO-CHAIR HUDSON commended Representative Barnes for bringing the appropriate parties to the table. He said that he thinks they have met their charge. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered if the use of gas in the pipeline would be limited to anyone along the line. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES replied no, nor does it limit the size of the pipeline being built. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered how much money will be spent to build an LNG facility that will accommodate the pipeline. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES explained that before beginning debate on the original enabling legislation, HB 393, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Department of Revenue (DOR), who had hired a consultant, had come before the legislature and provide the facts on the costs of the pipeline. She indicated that Commissioner John Shively of the DNR was present and could comment on that. Number 1336 JOHN SHIVELY, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources, stated that the estimates have varied quite a bit. He explained that when they started the project the estimates varied between $11 and $15 billion for the whole project. He pointed out that one of the major efforts of the sponsor group is to bring the cost down, because they recognize that the economics on the upper end of those figures is not realistic in terms of being able to sell LNG. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered where the primary field would be initially with the gas, and if there is a sequence of how that might be utilized. MR. SHIVELY explained that the gas primarily is at Prudhoe Bay. He also pointed out that Point Thompson has significant reserves that could be tied in, and there are other gas-prone areas on the North Slope that have not been explored yet. Number 1444 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER indicated that his original concern was that it be established that there be no higher priority for in- kind royalty gas than in-state usage for both the near term and the long term. He explained that it is not possible for him to ascertain whether or not the proposed CS accomplishes that goal at this point. He mentioned that the other top priority at the time the bill was initially discussed was future access rules, and that those future access rules be fair and equitable. He stressed that without having more time to review the proposed CS, he cannot determine that the proposed CS provides for that. However, understanding that time was of the essence, he indicated he had no objection to the proposed CS moving from the committee. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she does not believe that the subcommittee did anything to the bill that would preclude in- state use, nor did they do anything that denied access to the pipeline. She believes they came out of subcommittee with a fair bill, and it was her understanding that the bill was to be a simple regulatory bill to allow the projects to move forward with some certainty in contracts, without it being too cumbersome. She believes the bill does that, she concluded. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER clarified that there was no inference to the proposed CS having a negative effect, but simply that he has not had time to understand the ramifications of the inherent changes. He reiterated that he has no objection to its moving. Number 1650 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE commented that there has been a lot of press over the past year about the Alaska Gasline Port Authority and what they have tried to do, because it involves the boroughs along the route: Valdez, Fairbanks and the North Slope. He said he has looked over the letter from the Alaska Gasline Port Authority, and it is of some concern to him that the people who have a big impact on the project and are trying to get something going are not onboard. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated she has also received the letter from the Alaska Gasline Port Authority regarding HB 290. She reiterated that she does not believe that anything in the bill limits the size of the pipeline or the amount of gas that can be used in-state. Nor does she believe that the Alaska State Legislature, at any time, has taken a position of supporting any plan set forth by the Alaska Gasline Port Authority, the sponsor group, Yukon Pacific Corporation or anyone else. The legislature has worked on enabling legislation that will ensure that the gas is in the marketplace in a timely manner, and that will give the commissioner the tools that are necessary if and when a project of any size or scope is able to go forward. Writing a piece of legislation that gives one an advantage over another is not in Alaska's best interest. She believes it is in Alaska's best interest for those groups that propose a project that is viable under any of the proposed pieces of legislation that they go forth to the commissioner with their facts and once they are able to persuade him then he can come before the legislature. CO-CHAIR MASEK referred to the letter from the Alaska Gasline Port Authority and stated: This concern has never been discussed in conversation with my office, or during any meeting of the working group. It was made clear at last Monday's [February 21] hearing that any concerned party was to meet with the working group to have concerns discussed and possible amendments drafted. During the working group meeting last Thursday in Commissioner Shively's office, the Port Authority said they no longer had concerns with HB 290 and that they neither support nor oppose the bill. Nothing in HB 290 limits or restricts the in-state use of natural gas. HB 290 is not designed to support any particular project. Before any North Slope natural gas pipeline project can proceed, no matter the size of the pipe, certain changes to existing statutes are required. Number 1995 CO-CHAIR HUDSON said he would like to reiterate what Representative Barnes stated. There was no intent in the legislation to show any preference or to create anything that provided a preferential opportunity for any contractor or operator to build the pipeline. He said there was also full support for in-state use to be a high priority, if not the highest priority. He asked that the people who wrote the letter give the committee something specific to look at, which they can probably take a look at in the next committee of referral or on the House floor. He clarified that the size was not intended to be confining, but rather it was intended to express a fair and equitable process. He indicated that he does not know where the problem is coming from, but that it sounds as if "they" are saying that the Port Authority does not support HB 290 since the bill is designed to support a project size that could substantially limit or restrict the in-state use of natural gas. He wondered how that is possible since nothing has been received that would show how or where that would be the case. He stressed that the bill had not been altered appreciably. The intent of the working group and the subcommittee chair was to try to bring everyone to the table and come up with language that was as neutral and accommodating as possible, which believes they achieved. Number 2113 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked whether Amendment 3 gives the Joint Pipeline Office the oversight for the terminal and pipeline. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES answered, "That is correct." REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER indicated that he is also puzzled by the letter from the Alaska Gasline Port Authority, and is still looking for a reason why they object. He pointed out that the bill, as originally proposed, restricted possible access and usage of in-state gas, but that has been eliminated and maintained through the proposed CS. He noted that the stranded gas portion of the title was removed, so that a project that did not require falling under the auspices of HB 393 would not be required to participate under the rules of HB 393. He pointed out that it is possible that there may be projects, such as the Alaska Gasline Port Authority [proposes], that do not require the tax break associated with HB 393. He stated that HB 290 has been greatly improved, and he is in support of moving it from committee. Number 2268 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY commented on the letter where it says that the Alaska Gasline Port Authority would have as much gas as possible used and consumed within the state, with the excess being available to Asia. He said it seems that the use of the gas in-state would be a very low percentage, to make the project go. He wondered how much of the 12 percent royalty would be necessary for in-state needs. In looking at Alaska's history, he noted, the in-state needs have been dealt with by the state with its share of the royalty. He indicated that he does not understand the letter, and suggested probably about 3 percent of the line's capacity would be used for in-state use. He pointed out that there always have been power cost problems for rural Alaska, and he believes it would be feasible to shift some of the LNG to rural Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move CSHB 290 [version 1- LS1269\I, Chenoweth, 2/25/00] out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes; he asked for unanimous consent. There being no objection, CSHB 290(RES) was moved from the House Resources Standing Committee. HJR 56 - CONST. AM: WILDLIFE INITIATIVES Number 2525 CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 56, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska prohibiting certain initiatives relating to wildlife. REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HJR 56, informed the committee that he had introduced the resolution in light of what happened in 1996 on the same-day-airborne initiative and in 1998 on the wolf initiative. He read his sponsor statement: This legislation removes wildlife management from the ballot initiative process in Alaska. The framers of our constitution restricted the ballot initiative process in Article XI, Section 7, of the Alaska Constitution. Section 7 exempts certain subjects from the ballot and referendum process. I believe wildlife management is an appropriate subject for exemption. Our wildlife interests are best managed in Alaska by Alaskans. Removing wildlife from the ballot and referendum process will ensure that wildlife decisions are made in Alaska based on sound science, prudent management, and in an open and fair process. The alternative is a repeat of the last two elections, where special-interest groups from the Lower 48, using emotion and political agendas, attacked Alaska's outstanding wildlife management system. Alaska is not alone in this fight. In 1998, the citizens of Utah and Minnesota passed constitutional amendments to protect wildlife management and hunting in their states. Presently, there are constitutional amendments to protect wildlife management and traditional wildlife uses working their way through the state legislatures of Arizona, Idaho and North Dakota. Legislative counsel has advised that the legislature possesses the power to amend the Alaska constitution, subject to a vote of the people, but does not have the power to make sweeping revisions that radically alter the powers of governmental branches. Counsel believes HJR 56 amounts to an amendment of the constitution, not a revision, [which is] within the power of the legislature. Number 2780 SANDRA MATTIE testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, noting that she is a local business owner and is involved with the Coalition for the Alaskan Way of Life (CAWL), the Caribou Calf Protection Program, and the Alaska Trappers Association. She indicated that recent firsthand experience in the 1998 ballot issue over Proposition 9 had made her aware that the biggest threat to Alaska's wildlife comes from animal rights extremists from both outside and inside Alaska, who are abusing the state's precious initiative process to shackle the state's ability to properly manage fish and game. MS. MATTIE said steps need to be taken to protect the state's wildlife treasures for Alaskans as well as visitors to the state who have a true concern for making sure that the state's wildlife is a lasting and abundant resource. She said she believes that the landslide outcome of Proposition 9 has proven the concern of the vast majority of Alaskans with a 64 percent victory; it was a victory that came at a very high price in dollars and time to many individuals forced to participate in an arena that never should have involved wildlife issues in the first place. She stated that the Alaska system of wildlife management has worked well over the years. MS. MATTIE said the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), the Board of Game and the Alaska State Legislature have worked well together to preserve Alaska's wildlife for everyone to enjoy. She indicated animal rights groups are using "ballot-box biology" to circumvent the process that has been used for decades. She suggested that when special-interest groups do not get their way, it proves that the system is working. She stated that HJR 56 is fair for all parties concerned, because it makes the initiative process off-limits to hunters as well as animal rights groups. HJR 56 only protects wildlife, and that is exactly what the wildlife in the state needs. She added that she strongly supports the passage of HJR 56. Number 2911 PETE BUIST, Co-Chair, Coalition for the Alaskan Way of Life (CAWL), testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He stated that CAWL is a unique and diverse group spanning both rural and urban wildlife interests. In its initial effort to oppose Proposition 9, the wolf-snare initiative on the 1998 ballot, it organized 150,000 registered voters. He urged the committee to support HJR 56. He said that after seeing the damage that large, well-funded animal rights groups have tried to do by ballot initiatives in the last two general elections, CAWL believes that it is important that Representative Morgan's resolution be passed and brought to the people of Alaska to vote on. Alaska's wildlife is simply too important to all Alaskans to be managed on the basis of a series of popular votes; one has only to look at the current political manipulation of the wolf management issue. TAPE 00-17, SIDE B MR. BUIST further stated that wildlife ballot initiatives can lend themselves to extremely disingenuous campaigns to gain popularity, and the animal rights groups that commonly sponsor them do not seem at all constrained by any truth-in-advertising laws. He also pointed out that wildlife ballot initiatives lend themselves to the fundraising efforts of the animal rights groups. He stressed that Alaska's wildlife enthusiasts simply cannot compete with those groups; although they raised enough money to fight the wolf-snare initiative, he wondered why they should be forced to do it every two years just to defend their way of life. He concluded that by supporting HJR 56, [legislators] can help to ensure that Alaska's wildlife is managed by science tempered with public discussion, not the ugly politics of popularity and big-money campaigns. Number 2851 WAYNE HEIMER, Board Member, National Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He stated that his organization is a nonprofit conservation organization that is hunting-oriented and has 8,000 members, approximately 400 of whom live in Alaska. He explained that they believe initiatives are peaceful forms of social revolution that are appropriate when the electorate cannot assert its will through the established process. He added that he is also a retired wildlife biologist with 25 years' experience with ADF&G; his last five years at the department were spent researching the history of state and federal wildlife management regulations. He stressed that the wildlife management system in Alaska is perhaps the most open of all state regulatory processes; hence, it is the least likely to need legitimate initiative-type remedies and is the most logical candidate for removal from the initiative process. He encouraged passage of HJR 56. Number 2764 STANLEY NED, Tanana Chiefs Conference Incorporated (TCC), testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support of HJR 56. He said TCC hopes HJR 56 will make sure that wildlife does not become another bargaining chip for special-interest groups. He pointed out that it is also fair for all parties concerned, because it makes the initiative process off-limits to hunters and animal rights groups alike; it only protects wildlife. Number 2715 PATRICK WRIGHT, President, Scientific Management of Alaska's Resource Treasures (SMART), testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He explained that SMART is a nonprofit organization with a major thrust to educate interested individuals about the wisdom of professional and scientific management of fish and game. He stated that SMART fully supports HJR 56. He pointed out that SMART is greatly involved with preserving the Public Trust Doctrine embodied in Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of Alaska. The Public Trust Doctrine maintains that government has the duty, on behalf of the people, to protect, manage and conserve renewable wildlife resources; therefore, that responsibility cannot be delegated to the electorate for determination by popular vote. Therefore, HJR 56, proposing a constitutional amendment to finally stop extreme groups from abusing Alaska's democratic game management system, is a significant first step in bringing sanity back to the process. MR. WRIGHT indicated "ballot-box biology" is not the way to manage Alaska's natural resources. Alaska has an extensive open and public process by which to determine wildlife management policies and regulations. Alaskans should use this system rather than deciding these critical issues on the basis of emotion from 30-second sound bites. He concluded that SMART stands with Representative Morgan in defense of Alaska's wildlife in the reasonable and systematic management of time-tested, established methods. Number 2561 NANCY HILLSTRAND testified via teleconference from Homer. She stated that she believes in a balanced wildlife management that serves the people for common use, and which protects healthy wildlife populations for multiple species. She explained that initiatives may not be the ultimate avenue for wildlife management, but maybe [legislators] should look at the larger issue this uncovers; she asked them to ask the questions, "Why is this occurring? Why are wildlife initiatives happening?" She said the majority of Alaskans have not been allowed to pay into wildlife management and therefore have been given the backseat in policy. It is healthy to have people rise up and be heard, debate the issue, and come up with a solution; this is what democracy is all about. Rather than trying to "squash" the outcry of the people, [lawmakers] should hear what they are trying to say, in order to try to figure out a solution and come up with a consensus that serves all Alaskans, so that they are not setting up special privileges and exclusive rights, which the constitution abhors. She urged the committee to look at what the real problem is and to look at what they can do to come to a better understanding and balance, so that there aren't these battles all of the time. JOE MATTIE, Board Member, Alaska Trappers Association, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. A local business owner who is involved with the Coalition for the Alaska Way of Life and the Caribou Calf Protection Program, Mr. Mattie explained that he has been a resident of Alaska for 30 years and has spent the last 20 years traveling throughout Alaska pursuing an occupation as a fur buyer. He has had the good fortune of meeting countless people and their families, in many villages and communities. He noted that on a typical fur-buying day, he would land on a village airstrip and would be met by several trappers who would take him to the community hall; soon the hall would be filled with trappers who would visit and share information on fur prices and concerns about wildlife in their area. MR. MATTIE pointed out that young people learn about the pride and dignity that comes from providing for themselves and later for their families; he has watched them grow up and become productive adults. He stressed that Alaska's wildlife and way of life are being threatened by multimillion-dollar animal rights organizations outside of Alaska that, he believes, abuse Alaska's ballot initiative process for their own selfish and deceptive reasons. He stated that he certainly believes HJR 56 should be passed if making wildlife issues exempt from the initiative process is what it takes to protect Alaska's wildlife. Number 2299 BILL HAGAR, Member of Executive Committee, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He thanked Representative Morgan for introducing HJR 56. He indicated that he is one of the 90,000 licensed and paid members who attempt to hunt and harvest Alaska's game resources and also spend time viewing. He explained that harvesting game does not and will not exclude viewing. HJR 56 speaks properly to ADF&G's constant cry to remove game management from politics. He concluded that HJR 56 is long overdue and has complete rural and urban support. CO-CHAIR MASEK called an at-ease at 2:14 p.m.; she called the committee back to order at 2:15 p.m. She pointed out a letter that was sent to the committee from Kenneth Jacobus, who was unable to testify, stating that he supports HJR 56 and HJR 53. Number 2079 SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate, Alaska Conservation Voters (ACV), stated: Our 40 Alaskan organizations and business members represent over 22,000 registered Alaskan voters. We have consistently opposed efforts by the legislature to limit Alaskan's constitutional right to participate directly in the law-making process through the initiative process, and for that reason we are opposed to this resolution. We are opposed for several reasons. While this proposed amendment to the constitution appears to be limited to initiatives dealing with wildlife, on a more fundamental level it represents an erosion of public access to government. As we've heard from other folks testifying today, we can debate this "ballot-box biology" issue endlessly, but when one group of Alaskans are denied an opportunity to address an issue they strongly believe in by the initiative process, then the freedom of all Alaskans to express their will through direct democracy is threatened. Public policy issues addressed by the initiative process receive far more discussion, far more debate, than many of the hundreds of bills that are passed out of this building each year. The process, on the initiative process, is out in the open and at contrast to the often-clandestine process that can occur with some bills as they become law. Supporters of this resolution endorse placing the scientific process of wildlife management firmly back into the hands of [ADF&G] and the Board of Game. Let's remember that [AF&G] clearly needs to take their direction from the legislature, and the Board of Game essentially is handpicked by the legislature. Thus, the initiative process is one major way that all Alaskans can perform an important check on the power of the legislature. Alaskans are being asked in this amendment to relinquish their right to vote on wildlife management issues on the grounds that we're not competent enough to do so, we don't understand. Instead, we are being told to trust those decisions resulting, right now, from an unbalanced process that currently promotes the principles of intensive game management and the values of consumptive users to the near-exclusion of other users of the resource. I would agree with the other folks that have testified that our constitution's sustained yield and multiple use provisions have served all Alaskans and our wildlife quite well; it protects the interest of all beneficial users. Those same framers of our constitution who were wise enough to put Article VIII into it also included the initiative process. They had faith in the ability of Alaskans to make informed decisions through the initiative process, and obviously that faith that our framers had is not being shared by the legislature. The legislature, as we know, has ways to reverse the initiative process if they see fit; SB 74 that passed into law last year was a fine example. So it is within the legislature's power to correct any legitimate problems that might result from the initiative process. Clearly the system is not broken, and clearly the wildlife of Alaska are not going to be safer if this tool of democracy is taken away from the citizens of Alaska. Number 1876 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to HJR 53, HB 349, and Ms. Schrader's position statement on those issues where it states, "Alaska Conservation Voters supports wildlife management actions that are based on unbiased scientific studies." He asked why it was omitted in her position statement on HJR 56. MS. SCHRADER responded that in her position statement on the other two issues, she is suggesting that the management decisions should be based on unbiased science and should reflect the values of most Alaskans. It gets to the debate of whether it is science or politics that is running the wildlife management system, and she believes that everyone would agree it is a combination of both. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE agreed that there is a lot to be said for its being a combination of both. He said initiatives come around when there is little money; while there are many pockets to draw from in the Alaskan community, those pockets have limits, but they can draw on the many pockets of the nation. He explained that the ability to be for or against something gets unevenly tipped, and it is oftentimes those who feel strongly about an issue who put their money where their mouths are and beat the initiative back. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE stated that the only constitutional amendment that he thought he could support was the one on subsistence, and [the legislature] has gone around and around on that issue. He indicated that it comes to the point where he sees how the scales get tipped. He has a little bit of faith in the people that are appointed by the Governor and approved by the legislature, he said. He pointed out that there is a process by which people can bring a background of expertise to deal with the issues. As he gives more consideration to the concept of taking wildlife management out of the initiative process, he realizes that [people] can still use the legislative process, the board process, the advisory board process and all of the offices within to address the issues. He said that he does believe that ADF&G has done as apt a job as it can, and that is where the politics come in. MS. SCHRADER responded that the key word is "balance." She referred back to Ms. Hillstrand's question asking what the real problem is and what is bringing the initiatives to the ballot. She stated that it is because many Alaskans, when it came down to the same-day-airborne initiative, felt that the balance of the Board of Game, the advisory committees and ADF&G - which is given a certain direction by the legislature's intensive game management program - was being lost. Number 1508 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE indicated balance can mean so many different things to different people. He pointed out that on any given ballot initiative, nothing says that a like percentage of people who signed the initiative have to be representative of all the voting districts; there might be one signature from two-thirds of the district, which does not mean that there is a balance regarding how the people around the state feel on the issue. He concluded that balance can be skewed. If an initiative required [signatures] from 5 or 10 percent of [voters of] the whole state, it would have a harder time getting on the ballot, but would be reflective of the whole state. MS. SCHRADER pointed out that all registered voters have an opportunity at the polls to let their voices be heard. Although they could debate the whole petition [signature-]gathering situation, the bottom line remains that all Alaskans who are registered to vote can vote and make their views heard that way. Number 1393 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated that certainly every Alaskan that is registered to vote can vote, but it is also true that many people believe that there was false advertising and false information given out to the voting public [on prior initiatives]. She clarified that the legislature does not handpick the Board of Game, but rather the Governor submits names to the legislature to be confirmed or not confirmed. She referred to Ms. Schrader's comments about the legislature's restriction of the people's voice through the initiative process. She pointed out that the founding fathers, in Article XI, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, clearly laid out the restrictions on the initiative and referendum process. She read from Article XI, Section 7: The initiative shall not be used to dedicate revenues, make or repeal appropriations, create courts, define the jurisdiction of courts or prescribe their rules, or enact local or special legislation. The referendum shall not be applied to dedications of revenue, to appropriations, to local or special legislation, or to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety. Number 1151 MS. SCHRADER said that her choice of words was not skillful when she stated that the Board of Game is handpicked by the legislature. She explained that she is very aware of that process, and she is aware of the constitution as it relates to restrictions on the initiative process. However, the fact remains that when a governor proposes a candidate who is not a strong supporter of consumptive use, that person will have difficulty in getting confirmed by the legislature. Many Alaskans feel that there is not balance in the process of wildlife management and that they need to preserve their rights under the constitution to address that imbalance through the initiative process. CO-CHAIR MASEK noted that in the debates she has witnessed, the question that keeps coming up has to do with access and restrictions on hunting and fishing. She pointed out that the restrictions on the people who have lived in Alaska for many years in the rural areas are being affected by issues like the wolf initiative. She stated that there have been no restrictions on wildlife viewing and photography, yet there have been many restrictions with regard to hunting. Number 0999 MS. SCHRADER pointed out that wildlife viewing and photography are restricted. For example, Pack Creek is closed to viewing from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that the restrictions set at Pack Creek are so that people do not get eaten by a bears. She added that she herself has a serious conflict of interest, because her daughter is a photographer and believes that wildlife should only be photographed. CO-CHAIR HUDSON referred to Ms. Schrader's mention that the question is, constitutionally, whether it should be through politics or through science. He suggested that these kinds of issues should be based on science, and then the question is how to get the best science. He views the legislative process as being out in the open, he said, where the public has the right to see what [legislators] do, what they say and who testifies before them. CO-CHAIR HUDSON suggested that the question is whether sound science is better served by having the public vote on an initiative - where the science has not been revealed but public relations have been - or whether the public should vote on the legislators themselves. He pointed out that if the public does not agree with his input, then he will definitely hear about it, and it impacts his daily living: they send letters and give testimony. He stated that it is not just a question of trying to disrupt the public's opportunity to participate; rather, he believes it is not in the public's best interests to have it decided on the basis of popularity or a sound bite. MS. SCHRADER pointed out another problem: scientists have data that can disagree. In McGrath, there is not enough data to determine what the problems are. She stressed the need for more sound science instead of just going ahead with wolf control. She indicated that when the legislature passes intensive game management statutes that are so restrictive, it simply ties the hands of all the wildlife biologists, who are unable to apply their data because of being restricted by intensive game- management statutes. Number 0492 DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), stated that the AOC strongly supports HJR 56. He stressed that "ballot- box biology" is not the way to manage renewable resources. WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, pointed out that ballot initiatives in wildlife management have been used across the nation and have created some significant problems in several states. He stated that the ADF&G does not support HJR 56 because it fails to recognize that there is more to management of the public's wildlife resource than the application of science and technical expertise. Wildlife management must also consider and respond to the values held by the public about how they want the wildlife to be managed. MR. REGELIN told members that science-based management should be responsive to the goals and objectives of the Alaskan people for the conservation and utilization of their wildlife resources. There are many options for wildlife management that are biologically sustainable and, therefore, consistent with the sustained yield principle. There are many different views, and the initiative process is the most direct way for the public to sort out their views on public policies; taking it away is not something that the department can support. He indicated that wildlife management does involve scientific and special expertise, but so does administration and other public functions. There appears to be no reason to single out wildlife management as a subject too complex for the public to make policy decisions about through the initiative process. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered if Mr. Regelin was aware of the initiative process that chose to allocate fish. MR. REGELIN replied yes. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether Mr. Regelin had supported that. MR. REGELIN replied no. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES suggested that what Mr. Regelin had just said flies in the face of his testimony. TAPE 00-18, SIDE A Number 0057 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether the advisory committees and the Board of Fisheries and Board of Game, during deliberations, take into consideration the public sentiment at the time, in addition to science. MR. REGELIN replied that ADF&G tries to provide a scientific basis for groups like the advisory committees to make sound decisions, and it is their job to meld in the public and social aspects. He explained that the advisory committees in the rural communities are very representative of the people. In the larger communities, the people feel that [these groups] are not as representative of the community at large because they are so heavily dominated by hunters and trappers. He indicated that when the issue gets to the Board of Game, anyone can put in a proposal or come and testify, and then the Board of Game listens to all of the different public input and the biology, and makes a decision. He believes the system works, he concluded, and it is one which he is proud of. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE indicated that he believes there are examples where the larger communities are not dominated by hunters and trappers, but rather have strong conservationists. He also said that he believes the whole process, all the way from the advisory committees to the legislature, is under pretty heavy public scrutiny and guidance. CO-CHAIR MASEK closed the public testimony on HJR 56. REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN made a motion to move HJR 56 from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note; she asked for unanimous consent. There being no objection, HJR 56 moved from the House Resources Standing Committee. ADJOURNMENT CO-CHAIR MASEK adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee meeting at 3:50 p.m.