John Davies for Senate District D

campaign 2002 | biography | positions | legislation | contact

Legislation

The Alaska Democratic Party maintains a complete list of legislation sponsored or co-sponsored by Representative Davies.

Here are sponsor statements for several of Representative Davies' bills:

Sponsor Statement - House Bill 25
"An act relating to a municipal river habitat protection credit."

This bill, recognizing the need for habitat protection along rivers within a municipality, is a land management tool that provides the option of protecting fish habitat along the rivers by offering a tax credit to property owners along those waterways. Note that this is not an unfunded mandate. It is entirely optional at the local government level.

In 1995 the nineteenth legislature recognized the importance of this kind of protection by granting similar legislation along the Kenai River; this bill would simply extend that option to municipalities along other rivers. There are few, if any, other rivers in the state with the fishing pressure that exist along the Kenai. However as state population and tourism continue to grow, many other circumstances will arise where a municipality may wish to encourage habitat protection. This bill will provide one more option for them to consider.

Sponsor Statement - House Bill 30
"An act relating to subsistence hunting and fishing under ANILCA."

This bill provides a statutory framework for the subsistence use of fish and game that is consistent with ANILCA. House Bill 30 implements my "dotted line" proposal, which provides a compromise version of rural priority that allows maximum opportunity for subsistence use of fish and game by urban residents.

This measure would require the passage of House Joint Resolution 4, which allows a statewide vote to amend the constitution of the State of Alaska to allow the legislature to provide a priority for subsistence users of fish, wildlife and other replenishable natural resources on state land, based on place of residence, dependence upon, or customary and traditional uses of the replenishable resources.

The "dotted line" proposal embodied in HB 30 would establish rural areas of the state: a resident of a rural area would automatlically have a preference in the subsistence taking of fish and game. Residents of non-rural areas (urban) could apply for the subsistence preference and could be granted that preference based on his or her place of residence, dependence upon, or customary and traditional use of a fish stock or game population. When fish and game are plentiful all residents in the state who qualify would have subsistence access to all fish and game. When fish and game are limited, access would be restricted eventually to just subsistence users who reside near the endangered stock population.

Sponsor Statement - HJR 4
"Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska authorizing a priority for subsistence users of replenishable natural resources; and providing for a effective date."

This House Joint Resolution regarding subsistence, proposes amending the Constitution of the State of Alaska to allow the legislature to provide a priority for subsistence users of fish, wildlife, and other replenishable natural resources on state land, based on a place of residence, dependence upon, or customary and traditional uses or the replenishable natural resources.

This measure is a necessary companion bill to House Bill 30, which provides a statutory framework for the subsistence use of fish and game that is consistent with ANILCA. House Bill 30 implements my "dotted line" proposal, which provides a compromise version of the rural priority that allows maximum opportunity for subsistence use of fish and game by urban residents.

This resolution shall be placed before the voters of the state in the next general election and be made effective immediately upon certification of the election returns by the lieutenant governor. Note that this resolution would not repeal the equal access provision of our Constitution. If this resolution were approved by the voters, and HB 30 by the Legislature, the equal access would, for all practical purposes, be fully in effect the vast majority of the time.

Sponsor Statement - House Bill 46
"An act establishing the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission"

A Seismic Hazards Safety commission needs to be established to address the pressing need to provide a consistent policy framework and a means for ongoing coordination of programs and public safety practices related to seismic hazards. Currently this need is not being addressed by any continuing state government organization. The seismic Hazard Safety Commission would encourage long-term progress toward mitigating the effects of earthquakes.

Alaska is on the edge of the Pacific Plate, which acts like a relentless conveyor belt, moving about six centimeters a year. It is inevitable that there will be large earthquakes, the only question is when will they occur, not if they will occur. Although the state has made great improvements in disaster preparedness there has been little corresponding improvement in measures to reduce the disaster potential of major earthquakes and, consequently, to reduce dependence on disaster relief. Creating a seismic commission patterned after those in California, Oregon, Washington and other states on major fault lines will help address the issues. If you prepare for a major earthquake ahead of time and prepare appropriately, when the earthquake does occur less damage will result, less lives will be lost and the cost of recovery will be less.

Through ten years of experience as state seismologist I have extensive knowledge in this subject area. I have first hand experience with the difficulty if coordinating earthquake information for the university and state, federal, and municipal governments. Anchorage does have an active geo-tech advisory commission, but the state needs to strengthen that work while broadening efforts throughout the state. A Seismic Safety Hazards Commission can provide that strength.

The scientific community is working hard on earthquake prediction, but it is not yet a reality, except in the most general sense. We can predict in a probabilistic way where earthquakes are likely to occur so we can focus resources in those areas, but in terms of knowing the date and time of occurrence of earthquakes we will not have that information for some time, if ever.

The state can mitigate possible effects of earthquakes by encouraging appropriate land use and building design so it can reduce loss of life and property, as well as the costs of recovery when earthquakes occur. It costs a lot if money to rebuild after a large earthquake and, of course there is no way to replace lost lives; so it is clearly worth spending some time and money before earthquakes occur to prepare for them. This commission would help our state to get better prepared.

Members of the commission would be appointed by the governor to represent the university and governmental agencies, as well as members of the public who are knowledgeable in earthquake hazard mitigation. The commission would recommend to the public and governmental sector goals and priorities for reducing earthquake effects. The commission may accept grant contributions and appropriations from public agencies, private foundations, and individuals. The authority and responsibilities of other state agencies, boards, councils, commissions or local governments are not intended to transfer to the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission.

Sponsor Statement - House Bill 246
"An act relating to reimbursement of student loans; and providing for an effective date."

This legislation is designed to encourage Alaskans to decide to stay or return to Alaska after graduating from a college or university.

This bill provides a reimbursing formula which forgives a percentage of a graduated student college loan for each year they are employed in Alaska, at the rate of 10% a year, up to 50% of the total loan.

Alaskans, upon graduating from college or university often seek work and careers "outside" were there might be greater economic opportunities.

After investing 16 years of education in our children we should encourage them to utilize their skills and talents here at home, where we may all benefit from their educational experience. The high cost of higher of education should not be a deciding factor in where they decide to live.