Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
04/02/2012 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Board of Game | |
| HJR40 | |
| HB356 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 356 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HJR 40 | ||
HJR 40-RS 2477 RIGHTS-OF-WAY
1:32:32 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 40, Commending the governor and
the administration for aggressively working to enforce the
rights of the state in R.S. 2477 rights-of-way; urging the
governor and the attorney general to develop a working alliance
with other western states to protect and enforce the states'
interests in ensuring access using rights-of-way authorized by
R.S. 2477; urging the governor and the attorney general to
support the State of Utah and the southern counties of Utah in a
lawsuit against the federal government concerning R.S. 2477
rights-of-way, including filing an amicus brief in support of
Utah; urging the governor to dedicate state resources to
establish, protect, and enforce the state's interests in R.S.
2477 rights-of-way and to preserve state rights-of-way against
encroachment by the federal government; urging the governor to
reestablish a federalism section in the Department of Law and
sections in the Department of Natural Resources and the
Department of Fish and Game to support the preservation of the
state's rights and powers in compact cases; and urging the
governor to prepare an appropriation request to fund an
aggressive effort by the state to resolve issues relating to
R.S. 2477 rights-of-way, including possible litigation, and to
continue to work to preserve the rights of the state in regard
to R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. [Before the committee was the
proposed committee substitute (CS), Version M, labeled 27-
LS1407\M, Bullock, 3/29/12, adopted as the working document on
3/30/12.]
1:32:49 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HJR 40, Version 27-LS1407\B, Bullock, 3/30/12 as the
working document.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested an explanation on the changes
between this version and the prior version.
1:33:18 PM
JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that Version B of HJR 40 addresses some
concerns that the Department of Law (DOL) had with the prior
committee substitute (CS). He referred to Version M, page 1,
line 6, which read "the attorney general to support the State of
Utah" Version B changes it to the "interests of the State of
Utah" and on page 1, line 7, of Version M, deletes "lawsuit to
enforce." On page 3, line 20 of Version M, add "interests of."
On page 3, lines 20-21 delete "in a lawsuit to enforce Utah's
interest" and add on line 22, "litigation in the state." On
page 4, adds a paragraph to indicate the parties who will
receive copies of the resolution.
1:34:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 1, line 8, and asked
whether "in the state" was added.
MR. POUND answered yes.
1:35:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI referred to the first "further resolved"
[page 3, line 19] and said he still has a concern regarding the
clause. He wondered what "supporting the interests of the State
of Utah" actually would represent.
MR. POUND related his understanding that Utah is on point for
R.S. 2477 in the West. Utah has won one case in the courts and
is in the same situation - greatly exaggerated - since Utah
currently has 18,000 specific R.S. 2477 cases the state is
asserting. However, Utah's interests are very similar to
Alaska's in terms of asserting a right for access through land
that previously belonged to the Territory of Alaska that in 1969
was removed, in part. Since then, Alaska has been attempting to
assert its right in what was supposed to be an orderly fashion
in 1976, but the "orderly fashion" has been restricted by
various federal agencies and departments. Currently, Utah is
moving forward in the court system, which gives Alaska a chance
to learn from that state's mistakes and victories.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Version B was before the committee.
1:37:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI observed that the first "further
resolved" speaks to the fact the legislature would urge the
governor and the attorney general's office to support the
interests of the State of Utah. He asked how he would view this
request.
1:38:19 PM
KENT SULLIVAN, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Department of Law, stated Utah is very similarly
aligned with Alaska on R.S. 2477, but is ahead of Alaska with
respect to getting R.S. 2477 recognized. Alaska wants to
support Utah, to the extent that Alaska can join Utah in moving
R.S. 2477 forward and having federal officials recognize the
rights-of-way, and create policies to recognize those rights-of-
way without having to resort to litigation to assert those
rights.
MR. SULLIVAN related his understanding, from meeting with
attorney generals from Utah as well as county officials, that
Utah would like Alaska to support their efforts by asserting
litigation, identifying rights-of-way, and attempting to get
federal managers to recognize that through a change in policy,
without filing litigation, or by initiating litigation in
Alaska.
1:39:54 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON referred to the language on page 3, line 20,
which seems confusing since it says, "urging to support the
interests of the State of Utah; however, he asked whether that
is limited because after the counties of Utah, it reads, "in
R.S. 2477 rights-of-way" so that is the only interest Alaska is
asking for in HJR 40.
MR. SULLIVAN confirmed that this is correct. He said, "It's
simply R.S. 2477 rights-of-way since Alaska and Utah are facing
the exact same issues. He clarified that Alaska is basically
promoting Alaska's interest vis-à-vis supporting Utah's
interests with respect to R.S. 2477."
1:41:00 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony on HJR 40.
1:41:15 PM
MALCOLM ROBERTS, Consultant, Malcolm Roberts & Associates,
stated he is also a senior fellow at the Institute of the North;
however today he is representing himself. He stated two
critical issues are addressed in this resolution with
significant ramifications for Alaska's resources until the end
of this century and beyond. First, the resolution addresses the
valid existing rights of access across federal properties in
Alaska, which make up two-thirds of our state. Second, the need
to demand that the federal government lives up to the promises
made to the Alaska people in 1958 in Alaska's statehood compact.
He related his understanding in the reference to the federalism
division of the Department of Law that was discussed last
Friday.
1:42:19 PM
MR. ROBERTS related that U.S. Senator Ted Stevens once commented
that Alaska has more disputes with the federal government daily
than most states have annually and these disputes are primarily
over access. This illustrates how powerful and important this
question is to the state. He stated that having vast resources
means nothing if Alaska cannot get to them. He said he was not
referring only to resources on federal land, but on state land
that is unreachable, Native corporate land, Native allotments,
and what is left of other private inholdings. He highlighted
the good news is that Alaska has legal rights of access that
belong to the state and thereby its citizens.
MR. ROBERTS indicated Alaska's rights are based on proven
historic trails and were authorized by federal law revised
statute 2477 (R.S. 2477), as part of the Mining Act of 1866. He
stated these rights should be asserted by the state and it
should support Utah and urge other states to do the same. Last
Friday it appeared the DOL suggests [the bill sponsor] should
back off from the second recommendation with respect to the
defense of Alaska's rights agreed to in Alaska's statehood
compact.
1:43:26 PM
MR. ROBERTS said he strongly disagrees with that change if it
was made in Version B. He respectfully recommends this
committee call for a reestablishment of a division in the DOL
for this purpose. Former Governor Walter Hickel set up such a
division in the 1990s. This division should be a permanent arm
of the state's DOL and should be staffed by the best and
brightest attorneys Alaska can attract. He recalled in his 42
year career in Alaska that he has studied, debated, and written
reports on both of the issue addressed in this resolution:
access and the compact.
1:44:13 PM
MR. ROBERTS related that he was recruited in 1995 to head a task
force to research existing R.S. 2477 rights-of-way throughout
Alaska by former Senator Jack Coghill, who was at that time,
Chair of the Senate Transportation Standing Committee. Former
Senator Coghill was determined to preserve the state's rights of
access and he achieved a great deal in that regard.
MR. ROBERTS highlighted that R.S. 2477 has been utilized by
western states to provide public use ranging from walking trails
to remote fishing streams and lakes, to access to the banks of
state-owned navigable waters, to highway construction on public
lands now called Roads to Resources. He stated that the
statutory definition of highway as a unique transportation
system in Alaska includes roads, trails, streets, and bridges.
1:45:09 PM
MR. ROBERTS explained that his first assignment was to provide
the National Park Service with the information collected
indicating the state's valid, existing rights of access so it
could be included in the federal planning documents. He noted
these were plans that needed to be done after the passage of
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in
1980. The task force's mission was later expanded to provide
similar data for the refuge plans by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USF&W), scenic rivers, and conservation areas managed
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest
Service. He reported that the task force's final report on
January 15, 1987 identified over 600 R.S. 2477 rights-of-way on
federal lands in Alaska. However, in the ensuing years the
federal government insisted that Alaska must litigate when it
wants to assert an R.S. 2477 right-of-way. He emphasized that
it is patently absurd to require the state must sue to use
something that already belongs to the state. He said, "It's
like saying that in spite of the Bill of Rights American
citizens have to sue the federal government to get permission to
speak." He highlighted that this is one of the rights granted
to the state in federal law and it has always been preserved in
federal law. The rights belong to the state. The fears that
motivated the federal establishment in Alaska were partly the
result of a gaffe by the opponents of state access in the
federal government, who published a report and put a map on the
cover that included all of the possible or proposed roads,
trails, and rail lines throughout Alaska. It became known as
the spaghetti map and made the State of Alaska look like
downtown Los Angeles. The backlash was strong, even from many
Alaskans who support access and resource development since it
paralyzed the process. As a result, Alaska has retained its
standing as having fewer miles of roads than the smallest state
in the nation, which is Rhode Island.
1:47:05 PM
MR. ROBERTS concluded that as a result, Alaska has retained its
standing as having fewer miles of roads than the smallest state
in the Union - Rhode Island. When the task force wrote its
final report in the 1980s, it recommended that the state focus
on only eight vital transportation corridors to be asserted and
set aside for future use. He highlighted that the
recommendation is still valid and should be pursued. He
suggested that if he were to read the names of these corridors,
most people would understand the reasons for their importance
since they would connect key resource areas and communities that
are currently isolated due to the lack of access.
MR. ROBERTS said he has been very involved in the Statehood
Compact, beginning in the 1980s, with a study by the
organization, Commonwealth North, whose members included
publisher Bob Atwood, Governor Wally Hickel, Judge James
Singleton, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) commissioner
Irene Ryan, and environmental planner, Dave Hicka. The report
was published as a small book by APU Press called Going up in
Flames: The Promises of Alaska's Statehood Under Attack. He
offered his belief that this book should be required reading for
all those elected or appointed to public office prior to asking
them to swear to uphold the Alaska Constitution.
1:48:30 PM
MR. ROBERTS related he worked closely with Governor Hickel and
his legal team to launch four major lawsuits against the federal
government that addressed egregious violations of Alaska's
Statehood Compact. Unfortunately, these cases were filed late n
Governor Hickel's second term - too late to follow through - and
those who followed were lukewarm in their support.
MR. ROBERTS stated in 2002, U.S. Senators Ted Stevens and Frank
Murkowski through the U.S. Department of the Interior,
commissioned the Institute of the North to prepare a detailed
180 page ANILCA training curriculum for land managers, staff,
inholders, and all interested Alaskans. Since then the
institute has used that curriculum to conduct executive training
sessions on ANILCA.
MR. ROBERTS highlighted that page 60 of the curriculum quotes
Section 1109 of ANILCA, "Nothing in this title [the
transportation title of ANILCA] shall be construed to adversely
affect any valid, existing right of access." Section 1110 (b),
which read," ... assure adequate and feasible access ... " to
inholdings is guaranteed. Yet these valid, existing rights of
access have been ignore or violated - nearly daily - since the
passage of ANILCA.
1:50:12 PM
MR. ROBERTS said it is up to the State of Alaska to force the
federal government to obey the law. This will only happen if
the state creates a team of top attorneys who are committed to
defend Alaska's rights and a governor and attorney general who
will back them up. He offered his support for passage of HJR 40
and urged the committee not to leave it at that since there is
much to be done.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HJR 40.
1:51:08 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 40, Version 27-LS1407\B, Bullock,
3/30/12 out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection the
CSHJR 40(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHJR 40 Version B 3.30.12.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Robert Mumford.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB356 Hearing Request.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| HB356.PDF |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| Teresa Sager Albaugh.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB356-DFG-CO-03-31-12.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| HB356-DNR-MLW-04-02-12.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| HB356 Supporting Map.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| HB356 SCI Letter of Support.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| HB356 Support Comments.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| HB356 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |