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.
I have been a member and participant in the Alaska Partnership for Infrastructure Protection since its inception in 2006. Over the years there have been many discussions and table top exercises that cover the supply chain of practically all the goods that come to Alaska and the vulnerabilities there in. It’s only a matter of time until the Cascadia Subduction Zone ruptures. When that occurs Alaska will be cut off from the supply chain for a long time. Alaska, Oregon and Washington emergency planners as well as FEMA and the Military have plans to deal with this but in the worst case scenario parts of the west coast from Northern California to Seattle will be destroyed.
Alaska needs leaders who can do what needs to be done to make Alaska much more resilient and self sufficient. How will we feed the population of Anchorage when the warehouses are empty after 7-10 days? Yes that is the average inventory in stock. It will be months and longer before the supply chain can be restored. Oh, and by the way, the coastal highway was not built for the weight of trucks running 24-7 needed to even make a small dent in what comes up on barges.
In multiple states, Departments of Agriculture are now requiring farmers to surrender control of their land—through permanent conservation easements or outright land donations—just to access funding, permits, or zoning approvals.
How does forcing farmers to give up their land create food security? It doesn’t. It consolidates control, strips autonomy, and criminalizes traditional practices.
The new ag bills? They’ve made seed sellers into criminals. Not cannabis seeds—garden seeds. The kind your grandma traded in mason jars.
Twenty years ago, saying that would’ve sounded like a joke. Now it’s policy.
If you look at how these agencies operate, it’s not about stewardship—it’s about control. Oregon farmers their facing it right now big time they’re about to lose the ability to have a farm stand or you pick farm why because there are socialist tree hugging vegans on the Department of Agriculture We might as well call ourselves California.
I think the author misses a critical nexus in his support of the worst Governor in Alaska’s history: How does a Commissioner of Agriculture vs a Division of Agriculture director lead to greater food security for Alaska? There been no direct: “If we had a Department rather than a Division (fill in the blank) would happen and we have more food security.” This is yet another prime example of poor/lack of leadership from the Dunleavy Administration.
The quote from Capt. Pete “Maverick” Mitchell may apply here: “It’s not the plane (Department/Division) its the pilot (Commissioner/Director)”
These past 6 years have established, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Gov. Dunleavy doesn’t know how to hire real leaders
Ok… So Mr Bannock, do you deny that Alaska’s food chain is in any danger? Are you aware how difficult it is for growers and producers of meat, and meat products to sell? What solutions do you have? I hear a lot of complaining and whining, but no suggestions …except letting things stay the same and forcing property owners to dig deeper into their pockets. What do you want? What your answer?
I am aware of exactly how difficult it is, and that’s just for personal use however I’m going to tell you whatever you do with your board of agriculture it’s going to affect me and there is no a positive effect from a board of agriculture do you understand that have you bothered to look the Department of Agriculture in every state in the United States has done more harm than good. Do you realize there’s like six State Department of Agriculture now that require farmers to either donate part of their land or put it in various different types of easements in order to get permitting and funding. Please tell me how requiring Farmers give up their land provides food security? How does requiring livestock farmers to use medical veterinarians instead of treating their animals themselves how does that help food security?
Land Use
State donates 20–50 acres per community, scaled to population size.
Land located along major highways or central corridors.
Designated for farmers market, community cannery, and equipment library.
Farmers Market
Open 5 days per week.
Free vendor space for farmers selling Alaska-grown produce, meats, and eggs.
Half of vendor space reserved for agricultural producers.
Remaining space available for cottage foods, handmade goods, crafts, items made in the state, and food trucks.
All fees collected used exclusively for parking lot maintenance, trash disposal, water, sewer, and sanitation services.
Any remaining funds go to support the cannery and equipment library.
Community Cannery
Open daily to the public for personal use canning until 6:00 p.m.
Available for commercial rental from 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Includes pressure canners, steam kettles, vacuum sealers, labeling stations, prep stations, commercial ovens, and blast freezers.
Usage fees and rentals applied to equipment upkeep and facility maintenance.
Equipment Library
Located on-site.
Includes shared-use tools for land clearing, fencing, planting, and food processing.
Operated by local co-op or borough office.
Reservation system with liability waivers and basic training.
Policy Incentives
$50,000 sales tax exemption for farm income.
Business license exemption for qualifying small producers.
No permit or inspection required for non-hazardous cottage foods sold directly by producer.
Adding exemptions for small and personal producers encourages broader participation.
When more people produce even a little more, the community becomes less dependent overall.
This is a great example of a community cannery it’s a YouTube video the video name is community cannery it has a UTIA logo on it. ‘https://youtu.be/AlMT5K6-JBE?feature=shared
Thank you for reading my comment. I don’t think our food chain is any more danger than it’s been in the last 20 years. 50 years ago Alaskans relied on themselves for food (hunting, fishing and gardening); that’s largely the way I was raised.
Today, for myself, I AM reliant my local grocery store. But I must have not been clear in my comment; I’m not seeing a correlation that leads to “Growing Government = Food Security”
Maybe somewhere I missed it in the OpEd?
I’m not the Governor nor a legislator. Food security isn’t on my top 10 list of what’s wrong with Alaska, but please share with me and the readers how a growing government will lead to greater food security?
Once again the State is preparing to throw a ton of money on this idea. Not such a success when large state supported farming efforts were tried and failed in the past.. Think Delta barley fields and silo in valdez, or the Pt Mackenzie huge dairy farms that all failed or….. If a business cannot establish itself and earn enough profit to continue… thats life, move on.
Well said but
When is the state legislature going to follow the law. Remember the PFD!
Lots of good points in the comments on this one. Kevin claims bigger government will be more efficient, but only gives the example of more efficiently handling over tax dollars to private corporations. This will be used to grow GMO frankenfish in Alaska (pushed in a previous MRAK article) and endanger our ecosystem. How about a state program to get people started growing their own gardens? No corporate profits there, so no political donations. Follow the money, and see Kevin’s true motives.
the state split Department of Health and Social Services into two departments. the result has cost the state millions and resulted in poorer performance. One of the main reasons given is understaffing. Dunleavy includes agricultural loans as part of the effort needed to grow agriculture. I would imagine the current Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund would move into the new department. If you go to their web site this is what you see. ***Loan applications will be temporarily suspended until a qualified loan officer is appointed. Please call the main office for updates.*** Unless Dunleavy plans to adequately fund and staff a new department why bother.
So you understand that we are at the end of a fragile Supply chain yet you do not fight to Bring Port MacKenzie on as an alternate Port to ensure we do not have a single point of failure in the Anchorage port. Makes no sense.
Another well funded govt organization is not going to fix this issue Kevin. Its just going to shave off more of our PFD. Less money to purchase food and garden supplies while enriching some beauracrats in Juneau.
Repubs used to believe in smaller govt not ever expanding bloated beauracracies.
Make Small Govt Great Again.
In what universe does more government bureaucracy assure food security for everyone?
.
Consolidating government functions seems like a good idea, but verifiable audit data showing projected results of consolidation seems to be missing …why?
.
Who trusts a brand-new Department of Agriculture not to be a money-laundering racket, another crony club like the Department of Education for example, and just as useless?
.
Food’ll be cheaper? Teamsters, Longshoremen strike, apocalypse hits, China Flu II hits, we won’t go hungry even in winter because our Agriculture Department’s on the job, strengthening food security?
.
Remember the acres of empty shelves during China flu hysteria …can’t happen with our Ag Department running the show, right?
.
An Ag Department full of fresh-faced unionized wokester REMF’s who never turned a spade, raised a living thing, tossed a hay bale, met a payroll, but …who can regulate, complicate, shuffle data, launder money with the best, working for unelected bureaucrats accountable to no one …what could possibly go wrong?
.
Who’s honest, competent, ballsy enough, first to get Democrat approval to run this thing …then to tell Co-Governor Giessel how the Ag Department will be funded at budget time?
.
Apparently you can’t fix any other part of our busted, bloated, corrupt state government, but you want to plant a whole new department for Democrats to politically fertilize and triple in size just as soon as RCV installs one of their own in the Governor’s House, and do it now because it’s all about food security, plus everybody in the Lower 49 has one?
.
Yes, triple in size. Look at your “Alaska Food Strategy Task Force” roster, swear on a stack of Bibles your Ag shop won’t swell to accommodate all of them plus their strap hangers, lobbyists, consultants, and contractors. (‘https://alaska-food-security-and-independence-1-1-soa-dnr.hub.arcgis.com/)
.
If “the administration found a way to make it cost-neutral”, why can’t the administration seem to find a way to make all of state government cost-neutral?
.
So… your idea may have merit, but your presentation’s awful. Ditch the hype, buzzwords, and fear-mongering, explain factual pros and cons, answer questions from constituents who justifiably lost confidence in their public officials. What’ve you got to lose?
.
Come up with a mission statement, what your Ag Department’s supposed to do, what checks-and-balances and consequences assure it does what it’s supposed to do and prevents future Democrat-controlled lobbyist-legislator teams from morphing it into another corrupt, mismanaged authoritarian bureaucratic nightmare.
.
In other words, go all Shark Tank or go home.
Strongly disagree with article. Growing government is not the answer. We need different, decentralised solutions.
The fragile supply chain has much more to do with the Jones Act and our transportation monopoly. Alaska will never be self sustaining in Agriculture, we need more and cheaper options to deliver food.
The Biden Department of Agriculture was a complete disaster. Pure Marxist-styled operation from the ground up. So glad to see Dunleavy
implimenting common sense and a program that will work for Alaskans.