Passage of federal legislation such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act have all contributed directly or indirectly to this loss of jurisdiction. Equally important are the administrative actions and legislative interpretations developed by the various federal agencies -- sometimes in stark contrast to Congressional action, the Statehood Act and existing federal law.

In a recent transmittal to the Superintendent of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Governor Knowles clearly stated the growing conflict with the federal agencies:

"As a preliminary matter, the proposed rule contains several statements with which the State disagrees. Among the most significant of these is NPS' characterization of the marine waters within Glacier Bay National Park as federally owned and regulated."

"Under the constitutional doctrine of equal footing, confirmed by the Submerged Lands Act, the Alaska Statehood Act, and the Alaska Constitution, the State owns and therefore manages all water columns, shorelands, tidelands, and submerged lands, including the resources located within or on such lands and waters."

The Governor was commenting on the proposed NPS rule to phase out commercial fishing in Glacier Bay proper and to develop a "cooperative" management and planning system for the remainder of the marine waters. The 1998 Congressional amendments to Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve did require NPS to cooperate in the development of a management plan; it is obvious from the Environmental Assessment that the agency will attempt to excersize its prerogative of overriding state management when the agency unilaterally decides it is necessary to protect Park "resources and values."

Alaska's fisheries management, which has included Glacier Bay National Park, has been far more successful than the Federal management it succeeded. Although most resources are transient to the Park, it is clear that Alaska will now be required to establish a much expanded and expensive research and management program just to satisfy the demands of the National Park Service. This has now taken the form of an unnecessary and unfunded mandate.

There are a growing number of unfunded mandates associated with the creeping preemption actions of the federal agencies. On June 6 and 7, 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released briefing material related to "Implications of Federal Management of Subsistence Fisheries in Alaska." In this document it states:

"Two scenarios could occur for Federal subsistence management. One scenario assumes that the State of Alaska will cooperate with Federal managers, allowing federal management activities to supplement State management in a partnership effort."

"The second scenario assumes that the State will not cooperate, requiring a complete duplication of the State system with Federal staff to perform all management activities in river systems with Federal reserved waters. This would be more expensive, approaching $18 million in the first year, leading up to $31 million annually thereafter."

"In either scenario, Federal managers would require access to all the information concerning fish stocks of a particular river system to develop management objectives and guidelines and perform in-season management activities."

"Such capability would include the discretion to override State in-season decision-making where Federal objectives are in conflict."

"Such cooperation would require direct involvement with ADF&G with in-season information gathering as well and a willingness of State managers to defer to Federal oversight."

It is obvious that proposed federal fisheries management will follow the same pattern as with the last 10 years of federal subsistence wildlife management on federal public lands. The Federal agencies will attempt to utilize state expertise and resources to facilitate federal preemption. According to the briefing materials, federal management will cost anywhere from $18 million to $31 million, depending on the level of state cooperation in this preemption exercise.

Congress and the Federal courts have made it clear that states should not be faced with unfunded Federal mandates. During this period of severe state budget deficits, it is important the Federal government pay its fair share -- especially when it is the intent of the federal agency to preempt traditional state management of resources.

This bill does not prohibit cooperation with the Federal agencies. It just requires that when Federal actions restrict state management of fish and game resources, the state will be fully reimbursed for any action taken in that cooperative effort.