On the Menu 2.14.2025

EO 136 – Establishment of a Department of Agriculture (AFPC Supports)

You can read more about Executive Orders from the Governor, and the general overview of Divisions vs. Departments, on our blog here. The Legislature can either let it go into effect by doing nothing, or vote it down – no amendments are allowed to an Executive Order. The vehicle for discussing the EO is a piece of legislation that would take the only action available – disapproval. Those are HSCR 1 and SSCR 1– Disapproval of EO 136. HSCR 1 (House Special Concurrent Resolution) was introduced on January 27 and was referred to the House Resources and Finance committees. SSCR 1 (Senate Special Concurrent Resolution) was introduced on January 27 and was referred to the Senate Resources and then Finance committees. Note that if you support the creation of a Department of Agriculture, you would be encouraging your legislators to vote NO on these resolutions.

You can read a thorough overview of the EO and some background in our Policy Brief here.

House Resources took up the EO on Wednesday, February 12, you can watch the two-hour hearing here. They started with a presentation by John Boyle, Commissioner, and Brent Goodrum, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources. We were in the audience, along with staff from the Division of Agriculture, and members from the Alaska Farm Bureau, Future Farmers of America, Alaska Farmers Market Association, and the Food Bank of Alaska.  

Senator Hughes began by calling attention to the Food Strategies Task Force report provided to the committee. She provided an overview of the Task Force, the enabling legislation, and a cheat sheet that covers the 34 recommendations from the Task Force (you can see the cheat sheet here). The very first recommendation is the creation of a Department of Agriculture. She also highlighted the increased University research funding as another current priority. Senator Hughes talked about a community meeting she is holding to help with recommendation 32, developing individual and community food independence. She said she would like to see those replicated, and I will note there are similar efforts ongoing with AFPC and the many wonderful food partners working around the state. 

Commissioner Boyle kicked off with an overview of the need for a Department of Agriculture. He highlighted how the supply chain disruptions in 2020 really served as a wake-up call to the Governor regarding the vulnerability of our food security. The questions rose up of how we can be more food independent, and more food secure as a state. He talked about our history as a more food-secure state, with a rich agricultural heritage. It’s time to have a quarterback helping to lead the state forward on agricultural initiatives. We have a Governor and a DNR Commissioner who also loves agriculture and the bucolic fields of freshly planted vegetables. However, as Commissioner of ADNR, there are competing interests of oil and gas, mining, forestry, state parks, mariculture, and other issues that pull away from agricultural leadership. There is a significant need to have a cabinet-level position to coordinate across all of the partners across the state so that we’re pulling together in the same direction. The Commissioner noted we have a lot of chicken and egg challenges with ag in the state – both literally and figuratively. He talked about the opportunities for targeted state investments to help grow the agriculture industry. 

Deputy Commissioner Goodrum Deputy then began the presentation, which you can see here. It was noted that Alaska’s food systems partners are “strong, and eager to partner with a robust department.” True! The presentation provides an overview of the existing Division of Agriculture within the Department of Natural Resources. It then provides an organizational chart and overview of the 13 new staff that would be added to the new Department. A cost comparison was shown, noting that there would be an additional $2.7 million to the existing $7.2 million Division of Agriculture budget, for a total of $10 million and a total of 50 staff. Deputy Goodrum talked about the opportunity for the Department to meaningfully grow the industry, thereby essentially “paying for itself”. (Note, I’m not entirely sure how that would happen in the state of Alaska, without revenue ties to economic growth). 

Rena Miller from the Commissioner’s office then gave a sectional overview of the EO. She noted that the consultation surrounding changes to land leases and other land-related advising with ADNR would be with the Commissioner of Agriculture instead of the Board of Agriculture and Conservation. This is the one area that we have a bit of concern about within the EO. We strongly support a robust and active Board of Agriculture and Conservation that is substantively engaged. 

Rep. Saddler asked about the costs and expanded responsibilities associated with the Executive Order. Deputy Commissioner Goodrum reviewed page 11 of the cost comparisons. He suggested this is a “minimalist” first step and that going forward this provides a space to start a “long and enduring dialogue” about future services and investments. 

Rep. Elam asked if the Department has consulted with municipalities about this. Commissioner Boyle noted that no, they haven’t had official consultations but a new department would be well positioned to proactively have these conversations to help coordinate interests and efforts across regions of the state. 

Rep. Mears noted that she has deep family roots in agriculture, appreciates the effort, and sees a lot of benefits. She asked about other functions that were highlighted in the white paper, like the state vet, that are not included in this EO and if those could be considered in the future. Commissioner Boyle said that there could definitely be more conversations in the future, and how they’ve heard interest from the ag community for a one-stop-shop. The EO is approaching as a foundational effort, and he gave examples of options in the future. 

Rep. Coulombe asked about the state veterinarian and some functions of the Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and why those aren’t incorporated. DC Goodrum reviewed the broader considerations, including the federal primacy of ADEC over several programs that weren’t on the table for moving at this time. Rep. Coulombe asked about the future of more programming with ADEC and they said it would be a good topic for the new Commissioner of Agriculture to consider in consultation with other Departments. Commissioner Boyle noted the tight fiscal situation for the state, and that it was the intent to keep the proposal “measured and responsible.”

Rep. Fields put forward a consideration of the cost of the department relative to the Permanent Fund Dividend. He then asked about how mariculture and carbon capture functions may be implicated. Commissioner Boyle noted that both functions would remain at ADNR because there is a significant connection between land leasing and mariculture and carbon. He said that might be a conversation in the future. 

Rep. Saddler noted that he values agriculture immensely and that it is good. He asked how the new department would provide for more efficient operations of the existing functions, and how agriculture warrants a department versus other functions of ADNR, such as oil and gas for example. Commissioner Boyle said that it’s the need to have commissioner-level visioning and the value of that and he spoke at length about the rationale of the opportunity for a Department of Agriculture specifically. 

Rep. Hall asked about the connection with the Cooperative Extension. Commissioner Boyle noted the importance of Cooperative Extension and said he would hope that the new Commissioner of Ag should work really closely with the University as well as Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and ag growth should include strong growth with the University. 

Rep. Mears asked about forestry functions, which were also included in the Task Force white paper. Division of Forestry includes Wildfire Management, and Boyle discussed how proficient ADNR is with Forestry and how core those functions are within the department. 

Rep. Rauscher asked about kelp farming specifically. Commissioner Boyle noted that is under mariculture, and currently is retained within ADNR and tied closely to tideland leases. 

Rep. Saddler asked if a Department of Agriculture would bring in more federal money for the state. Commissioner Boyle supposed that it would. He said that USDA funding has not kept up in Alaska, and with a dedicated Commissioner we could get more money here through the Farm Bill and others. 

Chair Burke asked about the comment that if the industry grows by three percent, the department would pay for itself. She heard some suppositions about moving different functions over and expanding to an agricultural vet and asked if they anticipate additional costs. Commissioner Boyle punted those to the future, with a new commissioner. 

Rep. Hall asked a “first-year question” about admin services. Every Department has an administrative services division. Agriculture would not receive a full division of administration services, as it wouldn’t be large enough to justify. He couldn’t answer if there were vacancies in the current DNR division of administration services. Rep. Hall asked about vacancy challenges. Boyle said that ADNR has a low vacancy rate, and believed that agriculture wouldn’t have any problems with hiring (noting that Division of Ag has been able to hire successfully recently. 

Rep. Coulombe asked if the legislature would be able to alter to costs, or if they have to take the statement of cost as presented. Deputy Commissioner Goodrum noted that the EO is a take-it-or-leave-it, but that appropriation of money to the new department is at the discretion of the legislature which holds the power of the purse. 

That concluded the presentation, which was followed by the reading of House Special Concurrent Resolution 1 and taking public testimony. 

Robbi Mixon, our fabulous ED at AFPC kicked off the public testimony. She spoke to the strong partnership with the Division of Agriculture over the years, and AFPC’s full support of the creation of a Department of Agriculture. Rep. Fields asked Robbi if she was willing to trade off $8 of her PFD for the department. Robbi said she was speaking on behalf of her family only, and that would be okay. 

Scott Mugrage, President of the Alaska Farm Bureau and farmer and rancher from Delta Junction spoke in full support of the Department of Agriculture. Rep Fields asked the same question about the PFD trade-off. Scott said he thought we would make food much more affordable and accessible. Rep. Coulombe asked about energy cost impacts. Scott shared his experience, noting that we’re about five decades behind in agriculture in Alaska. There have been improvements recently with investments in ag research at the University, and we need to keep pushing. 

Beth VanSandt, co-owner of Scenic Place Peonies in Homer, spoke in support of the Department of Agriculture on behalf of floriculture. She spoke about the need and benefits of agricultural support for the peony industry. 

Inga Petersen, State President of the Alaska FFA spoke in support of the creation of the Department of Agriculture on behalf of over 400 middle and high school students in FFA. Since 2023, FFA has been housed under the Division of Agriculture and has flourished. She spoke about the opportunities ahead, and the importance of leaning into that. Rep. Saddler expressed appreciation for her presentation and asked about how she got into agriculture. Rep. Coulombe asked for an explanation of what FFA stands for. Inga shared that it used to stand for Future Farmers of America, but it is now just a title because it is so much more than the traditional vision of what a farmer is. 

There was no further testimony, and (after a lengthy at ease to ensure that the motions made were accurate) the EO was moved out of committee. HSCR 1, which is the legislation that would disapprove the EO, failed to move out of committee with Reps. Elam, Coulombe, and Rauscher voted no, Rep. Saddler passed, and Reps Hall, Mears, and Burke voted yes.

Senate Resources took up EO 136 later on Wednesday afternoon, you can watch the 1.5-hour hearing here. I’m not going to cover the presentations by ADNR since we did that during the House Resources hearing! Jumping straight into question by the committee members. Senator Wielechowski asked about the staffing structure and how many of the new administration staff would be engaged in the main function of the new department. Deputy Commissioner Goodrum said that the current staffing will maintain those main functions, and the administration functions will have to exist to support the new department. They crafted a very lean administration intentionally. Sen. Wielechowski noted his support for the administration, but he expressed his concern about how this will actually support more agricultural functions. Commissioner Boyle agreed but noted that the new leadership will provide accountability and advocacy for those expansions moving forward. As another follow-up, Sen. Wielechowski asked about future costs, and if there is any statutory or other limitation currently on ADNR or the Governor stopping them from seeking stronger investment in agriculture. Boyle said no, nothing is stopping them, and that they have come in the past asking for additional investment. He again noted in the future you might have a Governor and Commissioner that don’t strategically focus on agriculture. Sen. Wielechowski asked if there’s a decrease reflected from ADNR in administration services with this move. Commissioner Boyle said no – there are over 1,000 employees and there is really no functional decrease in the work of the department administration. 

Sen. Claman asked if this is such a priority of the Governor, why is this coming forward now? Commissioner Boyle spoke about the startup time of getting into office, the impacts of Covid, and the time it takes to be thoughtful for something like this and that the convening of the new legislature is a good time. Sen. Claman suggested that with 4.1% of the DNR budget committed to agriculture, he believes Boyle is doing an excellent job. A 34% increase in admin staffing with $2.7M to do the same thing – how does he tell his constituents that is a priority in the face of all the tough choices they have to make? Boyle asked the philosophical question of how important is long-term food security for Alaska. He talked about the challenge with the overall DNR budget – there is nothing that is frivolous, nothing easy to cut, and that we need to take a long-term view. Sen. Claman asked about cracking the energy issue, and if we should wait a few years to see if we really have a more feasible solution for energy (i.e. building a natural gas pipeline). Boyle said that the alignment and will are there now, and that is why this should happen. And that you want leadership for planning now versus later for agricultural growth. 

Sen. Hughes said she’s a big supporter, and she said “If not now, when?” She talked about how education funding is hundreds of millions of dollars, but this is a couple million dollars and that is a perspective to keep in mind. She talked about the nutritional impact for our kids with more locally grown food, and that this is a life and safety issue for having more food. She did suggest that there could be a reduction in the cost for the new Department in administration. She asked if the Commissioner would have the capacity to advocate for all of the recommendations of the Task Force. Boyle suggested that yes, he could. He said he has a lot of things that he has to deal with, and agriculture is just one of many, and that a Commissioner just focusing on ag should be able to do more (and maybe he could be the Commissioner of Agriculture!). Sen. Kawasaki asked if there are vacancies within the current Division of Ag. Senator Giessel then shifted to public testimony. 

Roger VanderWeele testified over the phone from VanderWeele Farm. He talked about the importance of the Alaska Grown program to their farm and the need for proactive engagement.

Mike Mosesian, who testified over the phone as the owner of Bell’s Nursery, talked about his business and the need for market development. He wants the Governor to engage with the stores to push for more nutritional, Alaska Grown food. 

Scott Mugrage, Beth Van Sandt, and Inga Petersen gave similar testimony as at the House hearing already covered. 

The Committee then came back to finish their presentation. Senator Hughes expressed appreciation for Inga and FFA. Commissioner Boyle spoke some more about the importance of agriculture in Alaska, and with final remarks from Chair Giessel, the committee adjourned taking no action.