Kevin McCabe: Why Alaska needs an Agriculture Department — and why the Legislature overstepped

By REP. KEVIN MCCABE

Alaska imports $3 billion in food annually through a fragile supply chain that could break down with little warning. Less than five percent of our food is produced in-state, despite our massive agricultural potential. To address this, Governor Dunleavy issued Executive Order 136 to create a standalone Department of Agriculture. It was a necessary, constitutional step toward food security, but the Legislature rejected it on March 19 by a vote of 32–28. That vote wasn’t about constitutional efficiency; it was about politics.

When the governor reissued the proposal as Executive Order 137 during the August special session, legislative leadership in both houses refused to even introduce it. That obstruction violated both the separation of powers and the governor’s constitutional authority under Article III, Section 23.

The Alaska Food Strategy Task Force’s February 2024 report made the need for a Department of Agriculture clear. With over 365 million acres of land and a growing agriculture sector, Alaska has the potential to feed itself and even export food. But right now, agriculture is buried within the Department of Natural Resources, where it competes with oil, gas, and mining priorities. Responsibilities for agriculture are also scattered across multiple agencies, leading to duplication, inefficiency, and neglect. A Department of Agriculture would consolidate these functions, streamline regulation, and support local producers more effectively. It would, in fact, make government more efficient.

All 50 states already have dedicated agricultural departments. Many operate with far larger budgets than the modest fiscal note that accompanied EO 136. Even redirecting a small share of our $3 billion in food imports into local production would grow our economy, create jobs, lower poverty, and improve access to fresh, healthy food.

House Bill 140, introduced just two days before the rejection of EO 136, would have created the same department through the legislative process. But that bill never even received a hearing. So this is not a dispute over executive authority versus legislation. The problem is a Legislature unwilling to work with the governor to improve food security for Alaska.

The Alaska Constitution gives the governor the authority to reorganize the executive branch for more efficient administration. The Legislature can disapprove an executive order within 60 days of a regular session, but that rejection must be based on efficiency—not politics or policy disagreements. The rejection of EO 136 failed that test.

Lawmakers raised three objections: the projected $2.7 million annual cost, a preference for passing a bill rather than an executive order, and a desire for a broader food security focus. But the cost was later challenged, and the administration found a way to make it cost-neutral. Preferring a bill over an executive order is a procedural opinion, not a constitutional standard. And wanting a broader mission does not make EO 136 inefficient.

The records of Alaska’s Constitutional Convention are clear: executive reorganization is an executive function, not a legislative prerogative. Legislative disapproval is meant as a check, not a tool for micromanaging policy or blocking executive action. Rejecting EO 136 for political reasons is a violation of the Constitution’s intent.

Gov. Dunleavy then included EO 137 in the Aug. 2 special session. Legislative leadership refused to introduce it, claiming it couldn’t be submitted during a special session or reissued at all. Both claims are constitutionally unfounded.

The Constitution states that reorganization plans may be submitted “during the first 60 days of a regular session, or a full session if of shorter duration.” That language does not prohibit submission during a special session. If a special session is shorter than 60 days, it qualifies as a “full session of shorter duration.” I cannot imagine a session of shorter duration that is not a special session. This interpretation aligns with Alaska courts’ common-sense approach to constitutional language.

And nothing in the Constitution prohibits a governor from reissuing an executive order. Citing Mason’s Manual – which governs legislative motions, not executive authority – is a smokescreen and thus irrelevant. The governor’s decision to reissue the order is justified, especially given the Legislature’s refusal to act on HB 140 or provide valid constitutional reasons for rejecting EO 136.

By refusing to introduce EO 137, the presiding officers of the House and Senate violated the process outlined in Article III, Section 23. That section requires the Legislature to hold a joint session and vote to disapprove. There is no constitutional authority for leadership to block introduction or return the order without debate by the members of both bodies.

This action undermines the separation of powers and sets a dangerous precedent. It allows personal disagreement to override constitutional duties. The governor is correct to consider EO 137 effective unless it is introduced and a resolution disapproving it is debated and voted on in a joint session, as required by law.

The framers of Alaska’s Constitution envisioned a strong executive branch, capable of efficient administration. Legislative review was intended as a safeguard, not a weapon. Refusing to consider EO 137, combined with the rejection of EO 136 and the failure to hear HB 140, looks less like reasoned policymaking for Alaska and more like obstruction driven by personalities.

Alaska’s reliance on imported food is a growing risk. Creating a Department of Agriculture is a strategic move toward food security, economic diversification, and improved public health. The governor acted within his constitutional authority. The Legislature did not.

Governor Dunleavy should continue pressing forward, using the Food Strategy Task Force’s findings to build public support and, if needed, seek a judicial ruling. The people of Alaska deserve food security. They also deserve a government working for Alaskans that respects the Constitution, not one that rewrites it on the fly for political convenience.

Rep. Kevin McCabe serves in the Alaska Legislature on behalf of District 30.