HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WATER

 

 

March 20, 2003   Hearing Room B

8:30 AM Tape  39 - 41

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:            Rep. Bob Jenson, Chair

Rep. Jackie Dingfelder, Vice-Chair

Rep. Jeff Kropf, Vice-Chair

Rep. Linda Flores

Rep. Mike Schaufler

Rep. Carolyn Tomei

 

MEMBERS EXCUSED:            Rep. Jeff Kruse

 

STAFF PRESENT:                  Pete Test, Committee Administrator

Ryan Sherlock, Committee Assistant

 

 

MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD:            HB 2669 – PUBLIC HEARING

                                                HB 2473 – PUBLIC HEARING

                                                HB 2475 – WORK SESSION

                                                HB 2551 – WORK SESSION

                                                HB 2253 – PUBLIC HEARING

                                               

 

 

These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules.  Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words.  For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.

 

TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 39, A

003

Chair Jenson

Calls meeting to order at 8:38 a.m., and opens a public hearing on HB 2669.

HB 2669 – PUBLIC HEARING

005

Chair Jenson

Closes the public hearing on HB 2669, and opens a public hearing on HB 2473.

HB 2473 – PUBLIC HEARING

015

Pete Test

Committee Administrator. Offers a description of HB 2473.

025

Rep. Butler

House District 60. Comments on his concerns for the recent loss of jobs in rural Oregon.

035

Rep. Schaufler

Indicates his support for Rep. Butler’s concerns.

040

Rep. Butler

Thanks Rep. Schaufler for his support. Offers testimony in support of HB 2473.

185

Tom McDonald

Summer Lake, Oregon. Offers testimony in support of HB 2473.

230

Rep. Kropf

Refers to Rep. Butler’s strong feeling regarding the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)’s dealings with private aquaculture facilities.

235

McDonald

Comments on the way in which the ODFW deals with private fish growers.

265

Rep. Dingfelder

Clarifies figures presented in Mr. McDonald’s testimony.

270

McDonald

Recalls where the statistics in question originated.

285

Rep. Dingfelder

Indicates that she is uncomfortable with the comparisons being made by Mr. McDonald, and asks what the actual cost is to the agency for raising trout.

300

McDonald

Discusses where the numbers come from, and the difficulty in obtaining the relevant numbers.

320

Chair Jenson

Thanks Mr. McDonald for his testimony.

345

Roy Elicker

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Deputy Director. Offers written testimony (EXHIBIT A) regarding HB 2473.

395

Chair Jenson

Asks what the reason is for there being only one producer of fish in the state.

400

Elicker

Clarifies that there were no other competitive bidders, and continues with testimony.

TAPE 40, A

005

Rep. Tomei

Asks whether there were other competitors in 1999.

010

Elicker

Explains that he does not believe there were any other competitors.

015

Rep. Schaufler

Asks if there is any truth to Rep. Butler’s allegations that ODFW purposefully hindered private producers.

017

Elicker

States that there is no truth to the allegations.

020

Rep. Schaufler

Asks Mr. Elicker if he could get a breakdown of cost by species of fish.

025

Elicker

Discusses the relationship between cost and species and indicates he will get a more detailed breakdown of those costs. Discusses the difference in costs between the Summer Lake facility and state run facilities, and delivery dates.

080

Chair Jenson

Clarifies that the department use of the staggered delivery dates is to fulfill its mission.

085

Elicker

Acknowledges and points out the concerns of dumping large numbers of fish into small bodies of water.

090

Chair Jenson

Asks why the department does not use a deferred maintenance schedule regarding the hatcheries.

095

Elicker

Explains that the department will be providing a report regarding this issue to the Committee on Ways and Means.

100

Rep. Schaufler

Asks if his office could be provided with a schedule of planter fish deliveries.

105

Elicker

Explains that he would be glad to do that, and clarifies which delivery dates Rep. Schaufler is referring too.

120

Rep. Tomei

Clarifies that it would be expensive for the department to make these small deliveries around the state.

122

Elicker

Acknowledges.

125

Rep. Tomei

Clarifies that raising trout is relatively inexpensive while raising Salmon and Steelhead is relatively expensive.

127

Elicker

Defers to Mr. Thorpe.

130

John Thorpe

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Propagation Program Manager. Explains why there are differences in costs when raising fish.

140

Chair Jenson

Asks whether the rainbow trout goes to sea.

145

Thorpe

Acknowledges.

150

Rep. Kropf

Asks if the department agrees with the proposed savings as outlined by Mr. McDonald’s testimony.

155

Elicker

Indicates that the department does not agree with the indicated numbers, and indicates that he will provide Mr. Kropf with a detailed analysis of those numbers.

160

Rep. Kropf

Asks whether there are any savings when these fish are produced by private vendors.

165

Elicker

Discusses the costs for raising trout and specifically the conditions which create the low costs at the Summer Lake hatchery.

185

Rep. Kropf

Asks for a complete breakdown of the costs associated with the state hatcheries. Asks about specific language in Mr. Elicker’s testimony.

215

Thorpe

Gives an explanation for those figures in his testimony.

220

Rep. Kropf

Clarifies that the department is already spending the money.

225

Thorpe

Acknowledges, and discusses budgeting.

235

Rep. Schaufler

Clarifies that the funding in question also raises salmon.

240

Thorpe

Further discusses the funding.

260

Aubrey Russell

Oregon Trout. Offers testimony regarding HB 2473.

285

Phil Donovan

Association of Northwest Steelheaders. Offers testimony in opposition to HB 2473.

325

Chair Jenson

Asks if the representatives of the Audits Division would come before the committee.

335

Rep. Dingfelder

Asks for a clarification regarding the breakdown of costs between different species of fish.

360

Kathy Polino

State Auditor Division. Comments that the committee should look more at direct costs rather and indirect costs.

390

Rep. Tomei

Asks that Ms. Polino clarify the differnence between direct and indirect costs.

395

Polino

Offers a distinction between direct and indirect costs.

420

Will Garber

State Auditor Division. Clarifies Rep. Dingfelder’s question.

425

Rep. Dingfelder

Restates her questions and expresses related concerns.

TAPE 39, B

025

Garber

Points out that the cost does include the costs of raising both trout and salmon.

030

Chair Jenson

Clarifies that the breakdown of the costs per hatchery were done based on returns

045

Garber

Comments on the means in which cost-per-pound were calculated.

050

Polino

Points out that cost per pound is the focus.

060

Rep. Kropf

Asks whether delivery costs were considered in the Auditor’s cost analysis.

065

Garber

Explains that delivery costs were considered.

067

Rep. Kropf

Asks whether if the entire facility were privatized, distinction between direct and indirect costs would be a non-issue.

070

Polino

Explains that there would be another cost associated with monitoring the private producers.

075

Rep. Schaufler

Refers to his experience in local government regarding audits, asks whether the business practices of the agency are considered by the auditors.

080

Polino

Explains that this would depend on the scope of the audit, but discusses when business practices are considered.

085

Rep. Schaufler

Asks whether the Auditor’s ever came across any direct evidence that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife purposefully hindered private business in the state.

087

Garber

Explains that no such evidence was found.

090

Chair Jenson

Asks if any further review or audit is being considered for this program.

095

Garber

Discusses future audits.

100

Chair Jenson

Asks that the Auditor provide the committee with the relevant information. Closes the public hearing on HB 2473, and opens a work session on HB 2475.

HB 2475 – WORK SESSION

125

Pete Test

Committee Administrator. Offers a description of HB 2475.

140

Kristina McNitt

Oregon Water Resources Congress. Offers testimony in support of HB 2475.

160

Rep. Tomei

MOTION:  Moves HB 2475 to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation.

 

 

VOTE:  6-0

AYE:            In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye.

EXCUSED:  1 - Kruse

 

Chair Jenson

The motion CARRIES.

165

Rep. Tomei

MOTION:  Moves HB 2475 be placed on the CONSENT CALENDAR.

 

 

VOTE:  6-0

EXCUSED:  1 - Kruse

 

Chair Jenson

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

170

Chair Jenson

Closes the work session on HB 2475, and opens a work session on HB 2551.

HB 2551 – WORK SESSION

190

Pete Test

Committee Administrator. Offers a description of HB 2551 and the proposed -2 amendment (EXHIBIT B).

210

Adam Sussman

Water Resources Department. Offers a description of the -2 amendment.

225

Kristina McNitt

Oregon Water Resources Congress. Offers testimony in support of HB 2551 and the proposed -2 amendment.

265

Chair Jenson

Clarifies that the -2 amendments have the language mentioned by Ms. McNitt.

270

McNitt

Acknowledges

275

Kropf

Asks if this bill affects the department’s fee bill at all.

277

Sussman

Explains that there would be no affect on the fee bill.

280

Rep. Kropf

Clarifies that the proposed option created by the bill is an option which would be more costly but expedite the process.

282

Sussman

Acknowledges.

285

McNitt

Concurs, and points out the language which makes the process optional.

300

Rep. Tomei

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT HB 2551-2 amendments dated 03/19/03.

 

 

VOTE:  6-0

EXCUSED:  1 - Kruse

 

Chair Jenson

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

320

Rep. Dingfelder

MOTION:  Moves HB 2551 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation and BE REFERRED to the committee on Ways and Means by prior reference.

340

Chair Jenson

Thanks the committee for the -2 amendment, and points out the concerns for even the perception that the committee was allowing new FTE.

350

 

VOTE:  6-0

AYE:            In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye.

EXCUSED:  1 - Kruse

 

Chair Jenson

The motion CARRIES.

385

Chair Jenson

Closes the work session on HB 2551, and opens a public hearing on HB 2253.

HB 2253 – PUBLIC HEARING

400

Pete Test

Committee Administrator. Offers a description of HB 2253.

TAPE 40, B

001

John Lilly

Division of State Lands, Assistant Deputy. Offers testimony in support of HB 2253 and the proposed -1 amendment (EXHIBIT C).

020

Rep. Dingfelder

Asks what percentage of the costs is covered by the new schedule of fees.

025

Lilly

Explains that currently the department is recovering around 11% to 13%, and would be able to recover 23% to 25%.

030

Rep. Dingfelder

Asks when the cost recovery policy would be implemented.

035

Lilly

Explains that the provisions regarding cost recovery in the bill were removed.

055

Rep. Dingfelder

Clarifies that the proposed fee increases would cover any increases in costs.

060

Lilly

Explains that he believes the current staff could absorb the increased workload, and further comments on the permit process.

080

Chair Jenson

Points out that there is a significant policy issue which needs to be addressed by the legislature: What should be the cost of permits and how much of that cost should be born by the state vs. those that are using the permits. Expresses the need for further discussion on the issue.

115

Tom Quintal

Private Miner. Offers written testimony (EXHIBIT D) in opposition to HB 2253.

135

Rep. Tomei

Asks whether Mr. Quintal recognizes the fairness issue of having those who use the permit process pay for that process.

140

Quintal

Indicates that he will address the issue at question later in his testimony. Continues with testimony in opposition to HB 2253.

265

Rep. Kropf

Clarifies language in Mr. Quintal’s testimony.

275

Quintal

Summarizes the language.

280

Rep. Kropf

Points out that if Mr. Quintal is correct then these fees could be diverted to the common school fund.

310

John Lilly

Division of State Lands. Clarifies that the fees collected would be dedicated to the fee process.

335

Rep. Tomei

Clarifies that from previous testimony that the common school fund is currently subsidizing the fee process.

345

Lilly

Discusses the percentage of cost which is recovered through the fee process, and how the Common School Fund makes up the difference.

370

Rep. Tomei

Clarifies that if the department were able to collect more through the fee process, the money currently being used to subsidize would go back to the common fund.

380

Lilly

Acknowledges, addressing the funding.

395

Rep. Schaufler

Clarifies that if even after this legislation the department is recovering only 25% of the process cost, they would have to raise the fee substantially to recover the full amount of the cost.

400

Lilly

Explains that the permit would have to be increased significantly.

405

Rep. Kropf

Clarifies what the purpose of the removal fill program is, and that it is a mandate.

420

Lilly

Explains that the removal fill program is a mandate, and explains the intent of the program.

TAPE 41, A

030

Rep. Kropf

Points out that this fee as a mandate might be addressed for its appropriateness.

040

Quintal

Asks that the committee ask the division for a cost breakdown.

055

Jean Wilkinson

Oregon Farm Bureau. Offers written testimony (EXHIBIT E) regarding HB 2253.

090

Chair Jenson

Thanks the witnesses for their testimony, closes the public hearing on HB 2253, and adjourns the meeting at 10:35 a.m.

 

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

A – HB 2473, written testimony, Roy Elicker, 3 pp.

B – HB 2551, -2 amendment, Staff, 1 p.

C – HB 2253, -1 amendment, Staff, 1 p.

D – HB 2253, written testimony, Tom Quintal, 6 pp.

E – HB 2253, written testimony, Jean Wilkinson, 1 p.