Friday, February 26, 2010
Water Users present bill to clarify what constitutes “floodways” versus drainages or ditches and “development” versus maintenance
Norm Semanko with the Idaho Water Users Association presented a bill to the House Resources and Conservation Committee clarifying what constitutes a floodway versus a drainage or a ditch and “development” in a floodway versus maintenance. “Lately, we’ve had local entities trying to require a permit to make maintenance improvements – what constitutes ‘regulatory creep’ by agencies,” he said, presenting a letter from the city of Meridian to a Nampa and Meridian irrigation districts saying that their performing regular maintenance on a Ten-Mile Creek required a permit. The bill was sent to the House for consideration.
Emissions testing legislation challenged in committee
Representative Steve Kren proposed a bill this week to the House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee that would have amended the legislative rule on emissions passed two years ago, saying that Canyon County commissioners weren’t given ample time to propose alternatives to a mandatory emissions testing program.
Rep. Kren’s bill would have raised the ceiling for ambient pollution levels in relation to the national standards from 85% to 90%.
Rep. Cronin noted that Canyon County had at least 120 days to put together an alternative plan. What they come up with was a proposed voluntary system, wherein those tested could enter their names in a lottery to win $5,000.
“I’m wondering, all of these other good ideas that we keep hearing about, why were they not brought forth with this suggestion?” Rep Cronin said. Rep. Kren replied that he thought that the commissioners thought their hands were tied by the words “equivalent to that of a vehicle emission testing program.”
Rep. Kren’s bill would have raised the ceiling for ambient pollution levels in relation to the national standards from 85% to 90%.
Rep. Cronin noted that Canyon County had at least 120 days to put together an alternative plan. What they come up with was a proposed voluntary system, wherein those tested could enter their names in a lottery to win $5,000.
“I’m wondering, all of these other good ideas that we keep hearing about, why were they not brought forth with this suggestion?” Rep Cronin said. Rep. Kren replied that he thought that the commissioners thought their hands were tied by the words “equivalent to that of a vehicle emission testing program.”
House bill would raise invasive species sticker price
The House Resources and Conservation Committee this week approved a bill which would raise the price of boat invasive species stickers to $7 from $5 despite testimony from floaters and paddlers who feel they pay a disproportionate share of the fee.
Howard Miller testified as a private citizen that the cost to register his five kayaks is unfair compared to the owner of a much more expensive ski boat, who must only pay for one sticker.
Paddlers also question whether quagga or zebra mussels can attach themselves to kayaks and canoes. Representative Andreason, whose informal approach to invasive species sticker distribution last year included passing out stickers from a bag he carried around the state in his car, presented a portion of rope clustered with mussel shells that had been submersed in Lake Mead for a period of weeks. He noted that as little as a thimble-full of infected water can be a vector of transportation to a brand new colony of mussels.
Representatives of the hydroelectric industry and the Department of Agriculture noted that the threat presented by invasive species warranted the speed with which last year’s legislation was passed and the informality of the original sticker distribution system.
Lloyd Knight of the Department of Agriculture noted that 78% of the funds received were spent on running 17 inspection and decontamination stations around the state. The rest were spent on education, capital outlay and monitoring. This year, the department plans on 16 such stations and upgrades to their monitoring programs and outreach.
The price increase allowed by this bill, Knight says, will allow vendors to recover the cost of distributing the stickers. Idaho is collaborating with vendors and hiring contractors to implement the system, rather than incurring the cost of additional state employees.
Rep. Hagedorn presented a substitute motion, to hold the bill in committee, which failed.
“I’m very uncomfortable that we don’t have a good business plan for something that could have a tremendous impact on our waterways and all the industries that are dependent upon our waterways,” he said, noting that the current proposed legislation offers a band-aid to the problems that have arisen, and that without a solid business plan, the committee was likely to see another bill next year.
Howard Miller testified as a private citizen that the cost to register his five kayaks is unfair compared to the owner of a much more expensive ski boat, who must only pay for one sticker.
Paddlers also question whether quagga or zebra mussels can attach themselves to kayaks and canoes. Representative Andreason, whose informal approach to invasive species sticker distribution last year included passing out stickers from a bag he carried around the state in his car, presented a portion of rope clustered with mussel shells that had been submersed in Lake Mead for a period of weeks. He noted that as little as a thimble-full of infected water can be a vector of transportation to a brand new colony of mussels.
Representatives of the hydroelectric industry and the Department of Agriculture noted that the threat presented by invasive species warranted the speed with which last year’s legislation was passed and the informality of the original sticker distribution system.
Lloyd Knight of the Department of Agriculture noted that 78% of the funds received were spent on running 17 inspection and decontamination stations around the state. The rest were spent on education, capital outlay and monitoring. This year, the department plans on 16 such stations and upgrades to their monitoring programs and outreach.
The price increase allowed by this bill, Knight says, will allow vendors to recover the cost of distributing the stickers. Idaho is collaborating with vendors and hiring contractors to implement the system, rather than incurring the cost of additional state employees.
Rep. Hagedorn presented a substitute motion, to hold the bill in committee, which failed.
“I’m very uncomfortable that we don’t have a good business plan for something that could have a tremendous impact on our waterways and all the industries that are dependent upon our waterways,” he said, noting that the current proposed legislation offers a band-aid to the problems that have arisen, and that without a solid business plan, the committee was likely to see another bill next year.
Bill would keep hunters’ names confidential
The House Resources and Conservation Committee approved a bill sponsored by Representative Judy Boyle that would keep hunter licensing and tag information confidential unless otherwise specified.
Rep. Boyle says that Idaho legal wolf hunters have received threatening emails this season . Rep. Hagerdorn noted he has had similar experiences after he engaged in a wolf hunt and had a story printed about him in a national paper.
Representatives of the Idaho Press Club and Idaho Allied Dailies testified that such records must remain public to allow reporters to verify when political candidates claim to be hunters and fisherman. In addition, outdoor reporters use such records to verify that their story subjects hold the appropriate licenses and tags.
Opponents to the bill also note that hunters and fishermen often refer to public records to report on others who are engaging in unlawful hunting. They prefer instead that the issue of harassment be dealt with from the standpoint of penalties for the person or persons engaged in harassment.
Rep. Boyle says that Idaho legal wolf hunters have received threatening emails this season . Rep. Hagerdorn noted he has had similar experiences after he engaged in a wolf hunt and had a story printed about him in a national paper.
Representatives of the Idaho Press Club and Idaho Allied Dailies testified that such records must remain public to allow reporters to verify when political candidates claim to be hunters and fisherman. In addition, outdoor reporters use such records to verify that their story subjects hold the appropriate licenses and tags.
Opponents to the bill also note that hunters and fishermen often refer to public records to report on others who are engaging in unlawful hunting. They prefer instead that the issue of harassment be dealt with from the standpoint of penalties for the person or persons engaged in harassment.
Senator proposes clarification in permitting requirements for big game pelts, collaboration on wolf management
The Senate Resources and Environment committee on Monday considered several bills presented by Senator Gary Schroeder, including clarifications of big game reporting rules.
Changes to Idaho Fish and Game rules in the 1990s inadvertently failed to clarify IDFG’s authority to require permits to buy and sell black bear and cougar pelts. Schroeder, a north Idaho taxidermist, says that this omission could result in negative media coverage for those who engage in a regulated trade in lawfully taken wildlife.
“The last thing taxidermists want is for people coming into the state buying and selling things without regulation, create bad situations, get in the paper and give the industry a black eye.” Senator Schroeder said about the bill, which the committee approved.
Senator Schroeder also presented a resolution designed to encourage broader fact-finding and idea sharing regarding wolf management. The resolution, Rep. Schroeder says, encourages the Governor’s office, IDFG and the Office of Species Conservation to reach out and take the lead in originating dialogue in a more expansive area.
“The states that have wolves from the Great Lakes to the West need to be comparing notes and making sure they have a coordinated strategy to manage (wolves),” he said.
Both bills were sent on for consideration by the Senate.
Changes to Idaho Fish and Game rules in the 1990s inadvertently failed to clarify IDFG’s authority to require permits to buy and sell black bear and cougar pelts. Schroeder, a north Idaho taxidermist, says that this omission could result in negative media coverage for those who engage in a regulated trade in lawfully taken wildlife.
“The last thing taxidermists want is for people coming into the state buying and selling things without regulation, create bad situations, get in the paper and give the industry a black eye.” Senator Schroeder said about the bill, which the committee approved.
Senator Schroeder also presented a resolution designed to encourage broader fact-finding and idea sharing regarding wolf management. The resolution, Rep. Schroeder says, encourages the Governor’s office, IDFG and the Office of Species Conservation to reach out and take the lead in originating dialogue in a more expansive area.
“The states that have wolves from the Great Lakes to the West need to be comparing notes and making sure they have a coordinated strategy to manage (wolves),” he said.
Both bills were sent on for consideration by the Senate.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Dairies Ask for Help in Restricting County Jurisdiction
Milk Producers of Idaho are asking legislators for their help in restricting county jurisdiction over large dairies, arguing that it is unnecessary to constrict Idaho Dairies to tighter air and water quality standards than are allowed under Idaho law. Click to read the full story from AP Reporter John Miller.
"Broad" Language Threatens Invasive Species Bill
Early in the week, the Senate Agricultural Affairs Committee voted down an RS that they said contained language that would allow too much latitude to authorities trying to curb the influx of invasive species.
Lloyd Knight of the Department of Agriculture fielded questions about proposed legislative changes that he said were necessary to allow law enforcement agencies the ability to be proactive in addressing species that may come to their attention in the future.
But Senator Schroeder said the terminology in the legislation was too broad, specifically the term “conveyance” which could include “a container” for example might allow officials to search something as innocuous as cooler in the back of a pick-up, and give them the authority to fine or jail those who fail to pull over at checkpoints.
“How does the public know what you mean unless you mean unless you communicate with them?” Senator Schroeder asked.
Knight was back on Thursday having removed the word “container” from the legislation, which was sent to print.
Lloyd Knight of the Department of Agriculture fielded questions about proposed legislative changes that he said were necessary to allow law enforcement agencies the ability to be proactive in addressing species that may come to their attention in the future.
But Senator Schroeder said the terminology in the legislation was too broad, specifically the term “conveyance” which could include “a container” for example might allow officials to search something as innocuous as cooler in the back of a pick-up, and give them the authority to fine or jail those who fail to pull over at checkpoints.
“How does the public know what you mean unless you mean unless you communicate with them?” Senator Schroeder asked.
Knight was back on Thursday having removed the word “container” from the legislation, which was sent to print.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Department of Lands proposes new rules
In June, 2007, the State Land Board directed the Department of Lands (IDL) to study problems with current lease rules and involve the stakeholders in the process of negotiated rulemaking. The Land Board wanted to avoid continued lawsuits and reduce costs to IDL.
On Wednesday, IDL representatives presented rules on new procedures to award leases on state endowment lands and to govern conflict auctions. About 45 people attended the joint presentation to the Senate Resources & Environment Committee and the House Resources and Conservation Committee in the spacious Senate auditorium.
IDL’s proposed changes include:
- Expanding the scope of the rules to include grazing, farming, conservation, communications and non-commercial recreation
- Requiring applicants in conflict auctions to agree to lease provisions, including management plans for the land. If agreement on provisions cannot be reached, the application will be denied.
- Allocating credit for improvements to the land based on the value of the improvements, including appreciation- over the length of the lease.
IDL representatives fielded a number of questions from the joint committee:
If a lease was put up for bid because of delinquent payments, would a person who was behind on something like child care payments, and owed the state, be ineligible to bid on a lease? Current processes wouldn’t pick up on this delinquency, but only on delinquencies on money due to the Department of Lands.
How do you monitor such disparate entities who could have leases under this expanded scope? Changes in the rule would require a meeting with the department to discuss proposed uses of the lands. Financial considerations to the proposed use and monitoring would be taken into account as well as potential conflicts between multiple leases.
How often would you monitor how agreed upon criteria is being met? The department manages 2.5 million acres of endowment lands, they would weigh, on a case by case basis, whether and how they would monitor this based upon the use and the subsequent costs to monitor. In some cases, they would require self monitoring and reporting back to the department.
Some of these leases have multiple purposes, some have timber and also grazing. How do you determine that one use is not in conflict with the other? What’s the criteria you’re going to use to evaluate that? IDL would determine what resource values or revenues would be at risk when reviewing the application. Area staff, based upon its knowledge of those lands, would perform this risk assessment based upon site specific conditions. For example, a lease would have to mitigate for fire prevention, if necessary, in the area.
If that’s the case, are you prepared to manage to that level? Are you going to go back every year, or once every 10 years? Depending upon the type of mitigation, it would be necessary to provide more oversight and cost recovery for additional inspections or administrative costs incurred by certain uses.
What is meant by the “valuation of improvements” and how is that different from current language? The term replaces the definition of “appraisal” clarifying that the department in conducting reviews is not serving as qualified appraisers. Regarding “permanent improvements” and how they’re handled in the lease contract itself, the language is not specifically related to the valuation process but the disposition of improvements if the lease is terminated.
Is this a change from the way it was handled before in considering whether to approve or disapprove the lease? Improvement credit is allowed in certain cases either through land sale or through conflict auction. The value of such improvements would be determined in the contract if, in the future, the holder were to lose the lease.
What about the time frame for lease to go through mitigation measures? Those appeals that go to the State Land Board have no time frames associated with them but would be handled on a case-by-case basis.
What would be an example of a cause to give notice of 180 days to terminate a contract? What if the department were approached for a “higher and better” use that would generate more revenue on the existing endowed land? Change of land-use would be a cause to terminate an existing lease.
Is there any compensation for the lease for improvements? Compensation is covered in the improvement section.
If you are leasing land to graze cattle at a cost of $5 per unit, can you change that price during the time the lease is in effect? Yes, those figures are recalculated and adjusted every year.
Public testimony included support for the rules with some suggestions for changes by the Idaho Cattle Association:
· Grazing Management Plans are a useful tool, but will have little or no effect on the department’s ability to manage the lease
· Idaho Department of Lands should not shift the cost of noxious weeds on the backs of the grazers.
· The IDL and the leasees need to continue to work together to manage for the long term needs of the endowment lands.
Both committees voted to accept the rules but rejected certain sections.
On Wednesday, IDL representatives presented rules on new procedures to award leases on state endowment lands and to govern conflict auctions. About 45 people attended the joint presentation to the Senate Resources & Environment Committee and the House Resources and Conservation Committee in the spacious Senate auditorium.
IDL’s proposed changes include:
- Expanding the scope of the rules to include grazing, farming, conservation, communications and non-commercial recreation
- Requiring applicants in conflict auctions to agree to lease provisions, including management plans for the land. If agreement on provisions cannot be reached, the application will be denied.
- Allocating credit for improvements to the land based on the value of the improvements, including appreciation- over the length of the lease.
IDL representatives fielded a number of questions from the joint committee:
If a lease was put up for bid because of delinquent payments, would a person who was behind on something like child care payments, and owed the state, be ineligible to bid on a lease? Current processes wouldn’t pick up on this delinquency, but only on delinquencies on money due to the Department of Lands.
How do you monitor such disparate entities who could have leases under this expanded scope? Changes in the rule would require a meeting with the department to discuss proposed uses of the lands. Financial considerations to the proposed use and monitoring would be taken into account as well as potential conflicts between multiple leases.
How often would you monitor how agreed upon criteria is being met? The department manages 2.5 million acres of endowment lands, they would weigh, on a case by case basis, whether and how they would monitor this based upon the use and the subsequent costs to monitor. In some cases, they would require self monitoring and reporting back to the department.
Some of these leases have multiple purposes, some have timber and also grazing. How do you determine that one use is not in conflict with the other? What’s the criteria you’re going to use to evaluate that? IDL would determine what resource values or revenues would be at risk when reviewing the application. Area staff, based upon its knowledge of those lands, would perform this risk assessment based upon site specific conditions. For example, a lease would have to mitigate for fire prevention, if necessary, in the area.
If that’s the case, are you prepared to manage to that level? Are you going to go back every year, or once every 10 years? Depending upon the type of mitigation, it would be necessary to provide more oversight and cost recovery for additional inspections or administrative costs incurred by certain uses.
What is meant by the “valuation of improvements” and how is that different from current language? The term replaces the definition of “appraisal” clarifying that the department in conducting reviews is not serving as qualified appraisers. Regarding “permanent improvements” and how they’re handled in the lease contract itself, the language is not specifically related to the valuation process but the disposition of improvements if the lease is terminated.
Is this a change from the way it was handled before in considering whether to approve or disapprove the lease? Improvement credit is allowed in certain cases either through land sale or through conflict auction. The value of such improvements would be determined in the contract if, in the future, the holder were to lose the lease.
What about the time frame for lease to go through mitigation measures? Those appeals that go to the State Land Board have no time frames associated with them but would be handled on a case-by-case basis.
What would be an example of a cause to give notice of 180 days to terminate a contract? What if the department were approached for a “higher and better” use that would generate more revenue on the existing endowed land? Change of land-use would be a cause to terminate an existing lease.
Is there any compensation for the lease for improvements? Compensation is covered in the improvement section.
If you are leasing land to graze cattle at a cost of $5 per unit, can you change that price during the time the lease is in effect? Yes, those figures are recalculated and adjusted every year.
Public testimony included support for the rules with some suggestions for changes by the Idaho Cattle Association:
· Grazing Management Plans are a useful tool, but will have little or no effect on the department’s ability to manage the lease
· Idaho Department of Lands should not shift the cost of noxious weeds on the backs of the grazers.
· The IDL and the leasees need to continue to work together to manage for the long term needs of the endowment lands.
Both committees voted to accept the rules but rejected certain sections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)