Alaska Conservation Voters

Conservation Watch

Alaska Conservation Voters
works to protect Alaska's environment through public education and advocacy, and supports pro-conservation candidates for public office.

“University Lands - I think it's kind of amusing - some of the objections, but it's a must pass.”
---Governor Murkowski, replying to an enquiry about his end-of-session "must haves" at a May 5 press conference.

“Well, we need more of these, don’t we?” --Senate Finance Co-Chair Lyda Green, expressing her support of the Pesticide Right-to-Know bill [HB 19] on its way out of House Finance.

• Senate Delivers on Pesticide Right-to-Know Bill
• Testimony Stalls ULands - For Now
• Frankenfish Labeling Bill Passes
• Final Blow to Coastal Planning?

In Every Issue

• Hot bills

HB 19, sponsored by Rep. Kevin Meyer (R-Anchorage) contains three major components: a registration fee on pesticide manufacturers, licensing (and thus training) of applicators, and a requirement for onsite notice when pesticides are sprayed in public parks, sports fields, government buildings and common areas of apartment complexes.

A combination of factors contributed to the success of HB 19. The registration fee will eventually eliminate the general fund draw for the Department of Environmental Conservation’s pesticide program, so the bill will be fiscally attractive. Secondly, Rep. Meyer crafted the public notice provisions of HB 19 to limit opposition from major business interests. Perhaps more importantly, tireless efforts by Rep. Meyer and his staff, the Department of Environmental Conservation, and environmental health advocates - including ACV - kept HB 19 in the spotlight throughout the session.

Legislative advocacy over the last five years also contributed to the success of HB 19 this session. In 2000, Rep. Sharon Cissna (D-Anchorage) pioneered a Pesticide Tracking Bill [HB356] that would have regulated the sale and use of pesticides in the state while making that information available to the public on an internet database.  HB 356 failed to move from its first committee of referral.

Over the next two Legislatures, Sen. Johnny Ellis (D-Anchorage) took on Pesticide Tracking [SB 14 in 2001] and introduced a comprehensive Pesticide Right to Know Bill [SB 27 in 2003]. Despite strong efforts by Senator Ellis and public advocates, neither pesticide bill moved to a Senate floor vote.

The passage of HB 19 is further evidence that good ideas will eventually move forward and become law. The bill is awaiting transfer to Governor Murkowski for possible signature.

Testimony Stalls ULands - For Now

Yet another round of fiery testimony greeted the University Lands bill (HB 130) in a Senate Finance subcommittee Monday night, May 2. Even though the subcommittee limited the testimony of local officials and concerned citizens to three minutes, the overwhelming opposition kept the public hearing going for a full 2 1/2 hours.

Testimony poured in from all over the state, from McCarthy to Willow to Ketchikan. Some University Lands advocates thought this hearing so important that they called in to testify from the Lower 48. A Sitka resident even called from a Los Angeles Airport payphone on her way to New Zealand.

Iditarod veteran Vern Halter flew from the Mat-Su Valley on Monday to testify in person against HB 130.  The Frying Pan Lake parcel near Willow, included in the bill, is criss-crossed by several well-documented historical trails vital to the dog-mushing community in the region.  “We’re pitting these communities against each other, and people against each other over these specific parcels, and I don’t think the public process has been adhered to," stated Halter.

Mary Irvine, a Juneau resident, called from a relative's funeral in Pennsylvania to ask Senate Finance to safeguard the Sumdum parcel (pronounced Sow-Dahn in Tlingit). The Endicott Arm anchorage is a wilderness inholding rich in archaeological history that would probably sell for millions to a large corporation as a cruise ship destination. "Because it is so small---because it is only 5 acres---if this were to be developed in any way, you would run into artifacts, and so you would destroy the archaeological nature of this site," Irvine said.

John Herschenrider highlighted the economic stimulus that undeveloped land provides by attracting Outsiders to Southeast Alaska's growing tourism industry. "They're here for the wilderness. They're not here for the shopping or the subdivisions," he testified. "So I'd like you to consider this: in one or two generations from now, after the rest of the world continues to be overdeveloped, this land, if left undeveloped, will be priceless to the state of Alaska and its residents."

Regardless of the reason they testified, folks were unanimous in their opposition to the lands bill, and the lack of transparency in the secret land selection process. Pelican resident Deb Spencer summed up the views of most other testifiers: "These lands are too important to communities to transfer without residents' genuine input. A few hours of rushed testimony are no substitute for a seat at the table."

Senate Finance is the final stop for Governor Murkowski’s controversial land privatization bill.  As of press time, HB 130 has not emerged from the committee. In order to pass this session, the Land Grant has to pass out of Senate Finance and undergo a Senate vote before the Tuesday, May 10, adjournment. If the bill clears Finance, it is widely expected to pass on the Senate Floor.

Alaska seafood marketers have consistently worked to distinguish Alaska products from those of national and international competitors.  The passage of SB 25 gives Alaska wild seafood businesses a marketing tool against engineered salmon and other seafood. The bill also offers Alaskan consumers information when seafood offered for sale in Alaska has been genetically altered.

One company, Aqua Bounty Technologies, a Massachusetts based bio-technology company, is marketing GM Atlantic salmon eggs to fish farms. According to Aqua Bounty, the GM salmon have a growth rate 600% higher than their non-GM cousins. The company is also promoting GM shrimp, trout, and arctic char. The elevated growth rate make growing farm raised seafood much less expensive.

The potential impact of GM seafood on Alaska wild stocks could be dire. Purdue University researchers have found that releasing a transgenic fish to the wild could damage native populations even to the point of extinction. Given the large number of British Columbia fish farms and potential impact of escaped farmed fish entering Alaska waters, Alaskans are rightly concerned about the consequences of our neighbors growing super-fish.

The Frankenfish Bill exemplifies how good ideas bridge the bi-partisan divide in Alaska .  According to co-sponsor Kim Elton, “I am encouraged by the bi-partisan support this bill received…It is a sign that, when it comes to seafood, Alaskans stand up for informed consumers and friends and neighbors working in the wild fish industry.”

Given the threats that genetically modified seafood poses to Alaska ’s resources, the passage of a bill that reflects the values of all Alaskans rather than the politics of the few legislators in power is refreshing. It is going to take international cooperation, however, to stem the tide against genetically modified threats to Alaska ’s resources.

Final Blow to Coastal Planning?

The latest drive to weaken the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program (SB 102) is under consideration in the House.  SB 102 passed the Senate on Thursday evening by a vote of 14-5.  The House Resources Committee began hearing a new version Friday afternoon that contains several provisions that might spell the program’s demise.

Sponsored by Senator Gary Stevens (R-Kodiak), SB 102 was originally billed as a deadline extension to help local districts revise their management plans to conform to the (still in flux) statewide policies.  The new draft contains the extension, but sunsets the entire coastal zone management program in 2011 and repeals the entire program if the federal government fails to approve the state’s program by March 1, 2006. 

The sunset provision acts as backdoor repeal of the program, requiring protective legislation to keep the program running.  The combination of the sun-set provision, federal-approval roulette, and current July 1, 2005 deadline on local districts to revise their plans doesn’t give a lot of hope that a strong coastal management program will survive the session. 

Staff to Senator Gene Therriault (R-Fairbanks) explained the new bill to the Resources Committee. Senator Therriault is a long-time critic of local coastal management.  Fortunately, coastal district representatives were given enough notice to provide testimony against the problematic provisions and in favor of the local plan extension that is tucked into the bill.  Representatives Seaton, LeDoux, and Olson all expressed concern the impact the draft bill would have on their communities.

At press time, the House Resources Committee recessed to the call of the chair.  Given the importance of the coastal management program to the state and local governments, expect a revised (and hopefully improved) SB 102 to emerge before the end of session.

Hot Bills

Bills move at a rapid pace this time of year. You can obtain up-to-date legislative information on the BASIS website. The following chart notes the status of a few bills of importance to the conservation community.