A veto by Gov. Sean Parnell of funding for a new Coastal Management program, should voters opt to create one in August, will delay implementation by almost a year, supporters say.
“You need to have money there to get that program up and running,” said Rep. Beth Kerttula, D-Juneau, a supporter of Coastal Management.
“To cut that seems spiteful to me,” she said.
“I’m disappointed,” said Mayor Bruce Botelho, chairman of the Alaska Sea Party, the main group backing the ballot initiative.
Alaska’s decades-old Coastal Management program ended last year when the Legislature failed to renew it. A ballot measure sponsored by the Alaska Sea Party and scheduled for the August election aims to bring the program back, creating by initiative what the Legislature did not do.
The Coastal Management program gives Alaskans a say in what federal officials do in areas along the state’s coast and in its waters, but has been opposed by some development interests who fear it may be used to block locally unpopular federal actions.
Parnell and others have said they fear development opponents holding the state hostage when projects of statewide importance are under consideration.
Parnell’s Coastal Management funding veto was not part of the $66 million in vetoes announced in Anchorage on Monday, but covered an additional $2.9 million to restart the program, along with contingency language that would have authorized the spending in the event of passage.
“The long and short of it is, the effect of this action is to delay substantially the reinstatement of the program,” Botelho said.
The Legislature last year returned to Juneau for a special session in June in a last-ditch attempt to keep Coastal Management alive, but found the Parnell administration had already dismantled the program that was slated to soon end.
That involved giving up its leased office space, dismissing employees, transferring equipment to state property officials and purging files, with some files being discarded and some going into state archives.
Kerttula said contingent funding was put into the budget to be able to implement the initiative.
“We needed to have that money in the budget when Coastal Management passes,” said a confident-sounding Kerttula.
If the initiative passes, the state would be required to have a Coastal Management program for two years before it could eliminate it. Parnell said he’d budget money for it next year, if needed.
“If it passes, we will request funding for the initiative,” he said.
Kerttula said that would likely delay starting the program for months, until the start of the next fiscal year in July.
Botelho said funding in a supplemental budget might speed that up, but not by much.
Parnell defended the veto, saying it followed historical precedent.
“In our state’s history, to our knowledge, we have never pre-funded an initiative,” he said.
Kerttula said the delay would mean the state’s developers would not have the program’s assistance in dealing with the federal permitting process.
“That’s unfortunate for developers around the state who want to start moving on their permits and have some coordination around it,” she said.
• Contact reporter Pat Forgey at 523-2250 or at patrick.forgey@juneauempire.com.





Comments (14)
Add commentWrong again, Rough...
Just a bump in the road from a spiteful governor attempting to thwart the will of the Legislature, and ultimately, the people of Alaska. Let's see how the vote comes out, and then perhaps you can call it done. I don't expect to convince you, but this issue is about much more than tree-hugging left wing liberals (*sigh). It's about communities having a say in coastal management of the areas in which they live.
The Leash...
...has been tugged again by Parnell's oil masters. And Parnell obeys, as always.
They absolutely DO NOT want local communities to have any say in coastal development affecting their area.
When this governor chore is done, Parnell will certainly get a nice treat from his masters.
Know where your money goes
So the governor deleted funding for something that doesn't exist; that seems pretty reasonable.
Ak Nut? Sean Parnell killed
Ak Nut?
Sean Parnell killed the existing program last year.
Alaskans fought back and reinstated it and
Sean Parnell killed the program again.
Alaskans are not living via Democratic principals Alaskans are being ruled by KingTurd.
and KingTurd wants to dole out our land ( prime public land) for pennies on the dollar as fast as his turd as s can to wealthy corporations that do not give a rats as s about Alaskans
Wake up folks this is happening across the country via the Republicans. They are pushing to sell out both State and Federal public lands, public investments to corporations for pennies on the dollar.
Republicans are in the business of wealth creation for the 1% in this country and it is up to all of us to end it. Vote out Republicans every chance you get.
Its clear the governor doesn't want local input
I don't think that everyone who is in favor of a coastal management system, with some input by local people, and in some areas many years of experience and knowledge of their region, are "tree huggers." They are people who are concerned about the future of their home, and not here temporarily to make as much money or profit as they can and then leave.
Never been done
Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. The Coastal Management Program should never been allowed to expire. The legislature failed, the gov is now making it worse. Not ok. Our waters and their bounty is as vital to Alaska as our mines and oil fields. Unlike our mine and oil, their bounty is renewable if taken care of.
"our" state?
"Parnell defended the veto, saying it followed historical precedent.
“In our state’s history, to our knowledge, we have never pre-funded an initiative,” he said."
"OUR" State?! No Parnell - this is NOT your state. If it were, you wouldn't keep causing carnage to our programs and communities.
Let us vote on the Coastal Management Program first...
...then pay for it. I agree with the Governor (and probably so does most of the rest of the state)....
hellojuneau1 must not be
hellojuneau1 must not be aware of the fact the program was paid for, that Congress passed the federal Coastal Zone Management Act in 1972 and that our state (with the biggest coastline) is the only state not in the program.
Why? Because Parnell does not care about the voice of Alaskans.
hellojuneau1 seems more aware than catandmouse...
hellojuneau1 seems more aware than catandmouse, in that the ACMP was legally allowed to expire by the Legislature, with only action by that body or a winning ballot initiative (both of which by law reflect the voice of Alaskans) able to re-establish it as a funded mandate.
C&M, it might be best for you not to presume the will of the people; or for that matter count (or recommend the money of the people fund) your chickens before they're hatched. Remember Ballot Measure 4?
Legally...
There is nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government say over our lands. The EPA should not exist. If by chance I am incorrect here, please provide the quote in the Constitution giving the federal government say over State lands.
However, there is the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Therefore, I see ACMP as a necessity in Alaska. Where my views tend to be more Libertarian, and people seem to associate Libertarian with no government which this is not always the case. Libertarian, or Constitutionalist, actually means smaller federal government and larger State government. The Federal Department of Education can go away and we can have a larger State Department of Education. Same with the Forest Service, BLM, Park Service, EPA, Department of Ag, etc.
Same for laws. Absolutely nothing in the Costitution goes over marijuana; therefore, the 10th Amendment applies. This doesn't mean it will be legal, but it does mean it is a State decission.
Choices closer to home are always good.
Indeed, wren! Choices closer
Indeed, wren! Choices closer to home are ALWAYS good! Here's an example: state A contains the the upper part of a river that runs through state B. State B uses this river for drinking water, and one day, state A decides to dump a bunch of mining waste into the river. The river is now poisoned, and state B can't acquire its drinking water from it anymore. In this situation, isn't it great that there was no federal meddling?
Another example: state A has very good air pollution regulations, but state B has very lax regulations. As a result, state B generates a lot of smog, which often is blown into state A. Because the federal government is weaksauce and has no authority over state lands, state A has no recourse. And a good thing, too!
The federal government shouldn't be allowed to govern us, but the states can strip away whatever freedoms and cause whatever harm they want! It makes perfect sense as a political ideology. Too bad about that "supremacy clause"...