ACMP bills may supplant ballot initiative

Coastal zone management bill gets first hearing; passage bill ‘substantially similar’ to initiative would get that off the ballot

Becky Bohrer

Associated Press

An attorney for the Alaska Legislature said March 12 that it’s entirely possible that bills passed in the House and Senate last year would be considered substantially similar to a ballot initiative that would re-establish a coastal management program in the state, perhaps eliminating the need for the ballot measure.

But Alpheus Bullard also conceded that it’s tough to say how the courts would view the question if the initiative wasn’t included on the 2012 ballot.

Bullard told the House Resources Committee that Alaska courts have dealt with two cases related to the issue of “substantial similarity” — the test for whether a new law supplants an initiative — and neither was as complex as this one.

March 9, Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell certified an initiative that would re-establish a coastal management program to appear on this year’s ballot. The Legislature can pre-empt initiatives by passing substantially similar legislation.

It also can pass a bill that it doesn’t intend to be substantially similar, let the vote on the initiative go forward, and let the chips fall where they may.

First hearing

The federal coastal management program lets states put conditions on activities on federal lands and waters on and off their shores. Alaska’s program was overhauled — some say gutted — years ago under then-Gov. Frank Murkowski. It lapsed last year, after several failed attempts by lawmakers to revamp and save it.

During last year’s legislative debate, one of the biggest challenges came in trying to find a balance between letting local communities have a say in development decisions that could affect their way of life, particularly with the future potential for offshore oil and gas drilling, and in not obstructing development that the state deemed to be in its interest.

The program spelled out by the initiative calls for a coastal policy board that provides local input in evaluating the effectiveness of district coastal management plans. The board would approve district plans if, among other things, the plans address a coastal use or resource of concern as demonstrated by local knowledge or supported by scientific evidence. Questions about the roles of local knowledge and scientific evidence were major sticking points during last year’s debate.

Bullard, in a memo earlier this year, said drafting a bill that provides greater local control and participation than the former program did — or that House Bill 106, the bill that cleared the House last year would have — could only help the effort of having it deemed substantially similar.

Bruce Botelho, a leader of the ballot group, told the committee Monday the Legislature should focus less on the issue of substantial similarity and more on passing a good bill.

No agreement last year

It’s not clear what kind of traction House Bill 325 might get in the Legislature this year.

Austerman said his goal in introducing the measure was to get a conversation on the issue going. He acknowledged, in speaking with reporters earlier in the day, that there is “angst” in the Capitol about whether the program is needed, or whether the initiative process is the way to go.

Gov. Sean Parnell and some lawmakers, like Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Haines, favor simply letting the people decide.

Rep. Bob Herron, D-Bethel, and a co-sponsor of House Bill 325, said one of his big questions is how far the ballot group is willing to bend in accepting a program crafted by the Legislature. Herron, who was part of efforts to try to reach a compromise last year, said it’s unlikely the House will accept the bill as it stands now.

He said he also is concerned that opponents of the initiative will “carpet-bomb the airwaves” in efforts to prevent its passage.