Department of Agriculture could face headwinds

Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s Executive Order creating a Department of Agriculture may be facing some headwinds in the Legislature. The objections are mostly over the cost of creating a new state department compared with continuing with the present Division of Agriculture within the Department of Natural Resources.

At least that’s what is said in public. But underlying that may be the fact that this is a priority for the governor and some legislators may want to leverage it for other issues.

But there’ also strong support for the new department, particularly among Mat-Su legislators.

“This is a good deal. It’s a bargain, and an opportunity we shouldn’t pass it up,” said Sen. Shelley Hughes, R-Mat-Su. “It’s worth a lot to get a seat in the cabinet when decisions are made in the governor’s office,” she said.

There are a lot of other issues taking up peoples’ time in the Department of Natural Resources like oil and gas, mining, forests and state land policy. With that, agriculture can get pushed down the priority list, Hughes said.

Hughes chaired a special legislative task force on farming and food security last year. Elevating the Division of Agriculture to the cabinet level was a top recommendation. But money is tight this year, and that could create an excuse for some legislators to say no to the governor.

Over Hughes’ objection a resolution disallowing the Executive Order went out of the Senate Resources Committee last Wednesday and is now in the Senate Finance Committee. A Finance subcommittee was due to review the new department idea Feb. 26, but was delayed. A similar resolution is pending in the House Finance Committee.

In the Senate Resources Committee three senators voiced their critical views: Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anch., said it’s tough to stand up a new department with a $2.7 million cost at a time when the state faces $500 million deficit.” Sen. Matt Claman, D-Anch, said all of a new department’s functions can be done now by the agriculture division.

Sen. Scott Kawasaki, D-Fairbanks, said he’s sympathetic to the idea of an agriculture department but that the governor should introduce it as legislation so that it can be vetted through legislative committees rather than as an Executive Order, a streamlined process that has no real public review.

Hughes acknowledged the concerns over cost but disagreed with what else was said. The work to help farmers can be done more effectively through a new department that will have an elevated status not only with other state agencies but also with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, she said.

All this is also a race against the clock, however. A governor’s executive order must be disallowed through a resolution within 60 days of its introduction. For this year this means March 12.

The vote on the resolution disapproving the Executive Order must also be done in a joint session of the Legislature.

At present, the Division of Agriculture has two sections, one working in agricultural development and the second managing the division’s Plant Materials Center in Palmer. The division has 32 full-time employees and five part-time. Its budget is $7.1 million in all funds, including state, federal and “program receipts,” mostly fees.

The division is responsible for crop inspections and certifications; farm production loans through the state Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund; agricultural land sales; seed storage and cleaning services; revegetation and erosion control consulting; invasive plant and pest management and industrial hemp regulation.

With department status many of these functions can be expanded, allowing more interaction with federal farm agencies and Alaska farm advocacy groups. In 2022 Alaska has 1,173 farms and ranches which produced $39.7 million in crop values and $51.2 million in animal production, according to the state natural resources department.