Borough won’t weigh in on bills

PALMER — Asked twice to weigh in on pending state legislation regarding natural resources, the Mat-Su Borough Assembly declined both invitations.

The first of the two resolutions considered Tuesday would have seen the borough come out in opposition to a bill ostensibly designed to streamline regulations, part of which would revoke rights to reserve water flow in a river for preservation of fish habitat. The second would have endorsed a planned Susitna State Forest.

The resolution in favor of the forest came from Mat-Su Borough Mayor Larry DeVilbiss, and it was the second time the assembly had been asked to weigh in on the forest.

“You know I don’t normally just bring things back, I think that’s bad practice, but we were being leaned on by the governor and I try to get along with the governor,” DeVilbiss said after the resolution eventually failed.

The resolution actually received less support at the assembly table this time than it did the first time around. Warren Keogh, an advocate of creating the forest, said he objected to some of the language added to the new resolution.

“Part of this is just ludicrous, to think that the state is simply going to transfer all or part of the Susitna State Forest management and ownership to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,” Keogh said. “I think it would be swell if we received those lands, but I think that’s a hallucination to think that the state is going to transfer tens of thousands of acres to the borough out of the goodness of its heart.”

Assemblyman Noel Woods objected to creating a forest because he said it would cut off settlement of the area with homes and cabins. Language DeVilbiss added to the resolution urging the state to put in some kind of escape clause to let forestland be reclassified as habitable wasn’t enough to win him over.

“I have a very strong feeling that once a state forest is put in place and all of the tourist attractions that they recommend, that once a state forest is put in place it will always be a state park, not just a state forest, and I think that’s happened in several other locations, and I feel that under these conditions that’s exactly what will happen with our state forest in our borough,” Woods said.

Vern Halter and Ron Arvin (who was physically in attendance at Tuesday’s meeting) were the only two to vote in favor of the legislation. Arvin is an ardent forest supporter.

“I think it’s important that we establish a state forest here in the borough,” he said. “This is not establishing a Susitna state park. … It brings a lot of value for the disposition of those lands once the state classifies it as a state forest.”

Assemblyman Jim Colver described the state legislation streamlining regulations for water reservations as a “Christmas Tree Bill” — a term usually used to refer to legislation under which there is something for everyone.

But there was one very specific part of the bill that Keogh found objectionable and which prompted him to write the resolution opposed to the legislation. That piece would revoke the rights of individuals, corporations, and nonprofits — anyone but the government — to apply for water rights for the purpose of maintaining enough water in a stream for salmon to live there.

Among his constituents are members of the Chickaloon Tribe and employees of the Chickaloon Village Traditional Council. The council has embarked on a multi-year project, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money to rehabilitate Moose Creek for fish habitat. Two of the people working to make that happen testified at Tuesday’s meeting.

“Alaskans deserve the right to legally restore and protect salmon habitats,” testified Jessica Winnestaffer.

Brian Winnestaffer told the assembly that the tribe had applied for water reservations — the application is still pending — when no one else had because Moose Creek is precious to the tribe.

“We want to ensure they will continue to thrive in Moose Creek,” he said of the salmon.

But the assembly decided not to side with Keogh and the Winnestaffers.

“I’m speaking in opposition but I do believe that some of the concerns have merit,” Assemblyman Steve Colligan said.

He urged folks concerned about the measure to contact their legislators and the governor’s office. Aside from those concerns, he said, the overall bill had his support.

“I’m supporting the issue of streamlining permitting,” he said.

Halter supported the resolution.

“A riparian property owner abutting the stream should have rights to the water flow,” Halter said. “That’s basic riparian property law.”

DeVilbiss said that in his experience living along Wolverine Creek, state agencies have been very good stewards.

“My experience on Wolverine Creek has been that they would never let you draw below a point where the fish could pass,” he said of those agencies.

Contact reporter Andrew Wellner at andrew.wellner@frontiersman.com or 352-2270.

Should the borough oppose changes to state rules for reserving water in streams?

Ron Arvin: No

Steve Colligan: No

Jim Colver: No

Vern Halter: Yes

Warren Keogh: Yes

Darcie Salmon: No

Noel Woods: No

Should the borough endorse a potential Susitna State Forest?

Ron Arvin: Yes

Steve Colligan: No

Jim Colver: No

Vern Halter: Yes

Warren Keogh: No

Darcie Salmon: No

Noel Woods: No