Saving Seafood

Alaska Supreme Court upholds legality of fish landing tax

May 12, 2021 — A raw fish tax that has pumped tens of millions of dollars into coastal communities over the past decade has survived a legal challenge before Alaska’s highest court.

The state can tax seafood caught beyond the 3-mile line in federal waters, then loaded on a bulk carrier at the dock for foreign export, without violating provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

That’s according to the Alaska Supreme Court, which released its 31-page ruling Friday.

Fishermen’s Finest, a Washington state seafood company that operates factory trawlers and exports most of its product overseas, had challenged the state’s tax in court. It argued that there are protections against state taxation on shipping in coastal state waters, and a lower state superior court agreed.

But the justices, writing in a unanimous opinion, found that the fees assessed on Fishermen’s Finest’s products are not unconstitutional

“The landing tax is not opportunistic taxation of vessels ‘merely transiting’ adjacent waters without landing or benefitting from any local services,” the justices wrote.

Read the full story at KTOO

Alaska’s Supreme Court to rule on fish tax, with millions at stake

November 2, 2020 — The Alaska Supreme Court is currently reviewing the constitutionality of a lucrative landings tax on fish caught in federal waters and brought through Alaska ports to be exported to international markets.

Every season, millions of tons of fish are scooped up by factory trawlers in the Bering Sea’s federal waters, which start three miles off the coast of Alaska. Most of those fish are processed at sea, then taken to ports like Dutch Harbor to be transferred to other ships and containers for export. Since 1994, Alaska has been collecting a three percent tax on that catch and distributing it to state and local governments.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Alaska Supreme Court Hears Challenge To Fish Landing Tax

October 23, 2020 — Alaska’s Supreme Court is weighing the legality of a raw fish tax that’s pumped at least $25 million into coastal communities over the past five years. But a lawsuit filed by a Washington state catcher/processor could change that.

Since the 1990s the state has taxed seafood caught by factory trawlers and floating processors through the Fisheries Resource Landing Tax.

Even though the fish is caught outside the 3-mile line in what’s considered federal waters, it’s often brought to Alaska fishing ports before loaded on cargo vessels and shipped overseas.

But seafood company Fisherman’s Finest has challenged the state’s tax in court, arguing it violates a pair of provisions of the U.S. Constitution that restricts coastal states from imposing tariffs or duties on goods brought in and out of a state.

Attorney Jim Torgerson told the Alaska Supreme Court on Wednesday that the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in 1996, “it has never upheld a state tax assessed directly on goods in import or export transit.”

Read the full story at KUCB

ALASKA: Supreme Court approves Stand for Salmon ballot initiative

August 9, 2018 — The Alaska Supreme Court on Wednesday approved the Stand for Salmon ballot initiative for November’s statewide election, but not before deleting some provisions that violate the Alaska Constitution.

The decision marks only the second time in state history that the Supreme Court has used its power to delete portions of a ballot initiative in order to certify the rest.

“We conclude that the initiative would encroach on the discretion over allocation decisions delegated to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game by the legislature, and that the initiative as written therefore effects an unconstitutional appropriation,” the judges wrote in their ruling, “But we conclude that the problematic sections may be severed from the remainder of the initiative.”

Supreme Court judge Daniel Winfree offered a partial dissent, disagreeing with how much should have been deleted by the court.

The ruling is the latest success for ballot measure proponents, who have been consistently opposed by the State of Alaska and a multimillion-dollar ‘vote no’ effort. Since the measure was suggested in May 2017, state attorneys have raised objections to its scope, which they view as overly broad and a violation of the Alaska Constitution. The Constitution allows ballot measures, but it prohibits those measures from making appropriations of money or resources. After an abortive first attempt, backers withdrew their measure and rewrote it. Despite that, the Alaska Department of Law said it was unconstitutional, and Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott refused to certify it for the ballot.

The state argued that the initiative’s eight pages of dense text create legislation that effectively allocates state waters for fisheries, excluding other development that might affect rivers, streams and lakes. Proponents challenged that ruling in Alaska Superior Court, and in October 2017, Judge Mark Rindner ruled against the state, saying the measure did not amount to an appropriation.

Read the full story at the Juneau Empire

ALASKA: Ballot measure opponents get financial boost

June 20, 2018 — Some of Alaska’s biggest mines are putting more money into their fight against a pro-fisheries ballot initiative scheduled for this fall’s general election.

According to a report released Thursday by the Alaska Public Offices Commission, the parent companies of Pogo Mine, Fort Knox Mine, Kensington Gold Mine and the proposed Donlin Creek Mine each contributed $400,000 to Stand for Alaska this week.

A pro-construction group also contributed $5,000 to Stand for Alaska.

Stand for Alaska is the independent expenditure group created to oppose Ballot Measure One, which would impose tough new restrictions on development that affects the state’s lakes, streams and rivers.

To date, Stand for Alaska has received more than $5 million in contributions.

The group supporting the measure, Yes for Salmon, also filed a contributions report with APOC this week. That report shows a $3,700 contribution from the Portland, Oregon-based Wild Salmon Center and a $5,958 donation from the Sitka Conservation Society. Both donations appear to be in-kind contributions of staff time, rather than cash up front.

To date, Yes for Salmon has received just under $728,000 in contributions.

Ballot Measure One is under consideration by the Alaska Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments April 26 about its constitutionality. The justices, who have not yet released their decision, are deliberating whether the ballot measure is so stringent that it effectively allocates the state’s waters for fish. Constitutional limits prohibit ballot measures that make appropriations of money or resources.

Read the full story at the Peninsula Clarion

Will the fish habitat ballot proposal prod Alaska lawmakers to pass a similar bill? Don’t count on it.

January 30, 2018 — JUNEAU, Ala. — Opponents of a citizens initiative to boost protections for salmon habitat have a path to adapt the proposal to better suit them: helping pass a similar bill through the Alaska Legislature, which would render the initiative void.

The largely Democratic House majority last week introduced a new version of its legislation, House Bill 199, that could serve as that vehicle. Both proposals would create new permitting systems for projects that would affect fish habitat.

But the initiative’s pro-development opponents say they’re not exactly thrilled by HB 199 either.

And they’re making no promises to try to transform it into a compromise measure that could permit resource-development projects while still achieving some of the habitat protections that supporters want.

“These solutions have to be to problems that actually exist,” said Soldotna Republican Sen. Peter Micciche, a Cook Inlet commercial salmon fisherman who also works for ConocoPhillips. “The Senate majority doesn’t recognize, at this point, that there’s a gap.”

The state elections division has not yet placed the initiative on the ballot. Yet it’s already proven polarizing, and its legality is also being challenged in the Alaska Supreme Court.

The initiative is backed by an array of conservation groups that have teamed with three sponsors: Mike Wood, a Cook Inlet commercial setnet fisherman; Gayla Hoseth, a tribal chief from the Bristol Bay region; and Stephanie Quinn-Davidson, an Anchorage ecologist and fisheries advocate.

The supporters say Alaska’s permitting standards are outdated and wouldn’t provide adequate fish protections if proposed megaprojects such as dams, coal export projects, and the Pebble mine near Bristol Bay are ultimately built. The eight-page initiative would create a two-level permitting system with more stringent rules, like requiring that developers avoid or minimize damage to fish habitat or promise to clean up damage caused by projects.

The initiative has raised $300,000, with support from conservation groups like Homer-based Cook Inletkeeper, Virginia-based Trout Unlimited, the Oregon-based Wild Salmon Center and New Venture Fund, a left-leaning nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., according to filings with state campaign finance regulators.

Read the full story at the Anchorage Daily News