On the Menu 3.7.2025

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 taking action on 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.

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

Senate Resources took up SSCR 1/EO 136 on Wednesday, February 19, and moved it out of committee and to its next stop at Senate Finance. SSCR 1 was heard at 9 AM on Monday, March 3 in Senate Finance with invited and public testimony. The hearing began with Alaska Department of Natural Resources Commissioner John Boyle providing an overview of the EO and the setting up of the new department. He reviewed the administration’s perspective of “why a department, and why now”, similar to what has been presented in other committees. Watching the first fifteen minutes of this hearing will give you a quick overview from the perspective of the administration. Senator Hoffman shared that his district, the size of the state of Washington, is keenly aware of food security vulnerabilities but their priorities are on the cost of living. And that the state’s priority is balancing the checkbook. ADNR Deputy Commissioner Brent Goodrum then gave the slideshow overview of the EO. He said that the EO moves the agriculture functions from ADNR into the new department – “Think of the cut and paste function in Microsoft Word.” He provided new information about an updated fiscal note in the works. After conversations with legislators and concerns about the budget, they have come up with a cost-neutral department (pending review by the Office of Management and Budget, OMB) by shifting positions around and restructuring. They will be putting forward an amendment request for that cost moving to the zero-dollar request for Unrestricted General Fund (UGF) (listen to the financial conversation here).

Sen. Cronk asked Boyle to speak to Forestry not being included here. The Commissioner confirmed that Forestry does not intend to move out of ADNR and will stay there for the foreseeable future. Sen. Kiehl asked about mariculture functions. Boyle talked about mariculture as an important agricultural activity across the state. He said they believe that after standing up a department, there could be additional functions (i.e. mariculture, state vet functions, etc) that could be moved into the Department of Agriculture if there was consensus and it makes sense. Sen. Kiehl appreciated the visioning but asked about how the plan seems to still be forming and the projected costs that aren’t necessarily captured otherwise. He noted that several years ago the split of two departments still had full-time staff working on that split and how they anticipate that will work. Boyle provided an overview of the relative simplicity of this proposal and his belief that it will have minimal costs and be accomplished relatively quickly. Sen. Kiehl appreciated the answer but still felt like it was in development and it’s a much harder discussion as an EO versus a bill. Sen. Stedman followed up with a question of why this was brought as an EO and not as a bill. Commissioner Boyle spoke to the Governor’s authority to make that decision, and he wanted it to be a top priority this year. Sen. Hoffman reminded everyone that the Constitution also requires the Legislature to have a balanced budget. Commissioner Boyle spoke more at length and included a response around the importance of “cracking the energy puzzle” not just for rural Alaska but for ag and all industries around the state. He referenced possibilities ahead, from LNG to coal to wind and solar and more. Juneau Greens was referenced, benefiting from lower-cost hydropower in Juneau, as was the school greenhouse in Tok growing produce using biomass fuels. 

Sen. Hoffman said the relationship over the past year between the Legislature and the Governor has not been great, and they really want to look forward to improving that and being productive. “There’s a lot of work to be done and that work cannot be done if we do not have a working relationship with the third floor.” (third floor = Governor’s offices in the Capitol building) 

The Committee then shifted to considering the SSCR 1 – the resolution to disapprove the EO. Liz Harpold, staff to Sen. Olson, gave a quick overview and noted that voting to advance this resolution is not a reflection of members’ intentions to vote for or against the resolution in the joint session. 

The public hearing was opened. Dylan Blankenship, a hay farmer in Point MacKenzie, provided his support from the perspective of a young farmer seeing farmland go fallow or turn into subdivisions. He shared his challenges trying to secure funding through the Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund (ARLF), being told now that there might not be enough money in the fund to move forward on his loan application. He implored more support in-state for agriculture support. Bernie Karl, Chena Hot Springs, testified in support of the EO and spoke at length about opportunities for energy use and greenhouse growing. He believed that an Agriculture department would solve both food and energy issues in rural Alaska. Scott Mugrage, farmer/rancher and President of the Alaska Farm Bureau, Delta Junction, testified in strong support of the EO. Rachel Lord, (that’s me!) Alaska Food Policy Council provided testimony in support of the Department. Finally, Amy Seitz, Policy Director of the Alaska Farm Bureau & third-generation farmer from Soldotna, also spoke in strong support of the Department. She noted that 1959 and 2011 would have been great times to start a department, but here we are and we have a lot of momentum behind agriculture across Alaska. All of this momentum makes now a great time to start the department. Marshall Trent, Wasilla, spoke in support of the Department of Agriculture. In addition to that support, he implored funding ARLF.

Following public testimony, Sen. Stedman provided a motion to move the resolution out of committee to joint session with the repeated clarifying caveat that this action doesn’t indicate members intentions to vote for or against the resolution in joint session with the House (when final action will be taken for or against). You can watch the entire hearing here. 

On Wednesday, March 5 the House assigned SSCR 1 to House Finance, where it awaits scheduling. SSCR 1 is scheduled to be heard in House Finance on Monday, March 10 at 1:30 PM.