Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/27/2001 01:12 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 241-RAIL AND UTILITY CORRIDOR TO CANADA VICE CHAIR FATE announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 241, "An Act relating to a railroad utility corridor for extension of the Alaska Railroad to Canada and to extension of the Alaska Railroad to Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada." REPRESENTATIVE JEANETTE JAMES, Alaska State Legislature, testified as the sponsor of HB 241. She noted that she has been working on this issue for some time and filed HB 241 because she wanted to have a definite alignment of the rail corridor. Currently, there is a "center-line" survey from the air to identify where the corridor would be located, which is along the highway. She related her belief that there are some gas rights- of-way along the highway. She explained that the rail corridor has two endings one of which extends to the Canadian border and the other proceeds north at Tetlin and comes down the Ladue River and continues through Carmacks and Faro to Watson Lake. Although that is a resource rich area, it seems unlikely that a railroad would be put through the Yukon Territory and connect with the British Columbia Rail without going through Whitehorse. Furthermore, although the Ladue River is state-owned land, it includes wetlands and habitat and thus it may be easier to proceed down the highway, an area that has already been disturbed. Therefore, HB 241 doesn't specify going through the Ladue River, it merely says that the rail would go to the Canadian border and on to Whitehorse. This legislation would authorize the railroad to do surveying of a 500 foot wide corridor to be utilized for railroad transportation and utilities. After the extensive survey has been prepared, the survey would be submitted to the State of Alaska who would then transfer the land within the corridor to the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC). For the land that is not state land, there would be authorization to proceed in obtaining right-of-way permission. She said that she didn't know what had to be done once the corridor reaches the Canadian border; the corporation would have to deal with that. She pointed out that there is no financial help with this proposal and thus she assumed that ARRC would find its own funding for this. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES informed the committee of the dispute she has with the State of Alaska, which would prefer to give the railroad a right-of-way. However, she felt that "they" need to own the right-of-way because ARRC is a state-owned corporation and all of the railroad's current rights-of-way belong to it save those passing through military bases. Therefore, the issue of giving [the right-of-way] to the railroad isn't realistic because it's transferring it. This situation would be the same as transferring land from the state to the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA). She also noted that there will be testimony regarding whether the gas line should be placed in the railroad corridor, an issue for which she didn't have an answer. However, she explained that one of the reasons for HB 241 is to avoid a situation in which a gas line is the road where the railroad is to be placed. She mentioned that she has had extensive conversations with the oil companies on this matter. The [difficulty] is who would receive the money from the oil companies for the gas line [if it were to be located in the railroad right-of-way]. The state would probably claim it should receive that money. However, she suggested that if the gas line was in the railroad corridor and the industry paid the railroad, the railroad would build it because the railroad could bond for that future revenue. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES acknowledged that there is much controversy surrounding the railroad as it was setup to operate as an almost private corporation owned by state funds. Furthermore, the legislature continually attempts to hamper the railroad's efforts to run like a private corporation. Representative James recognized that many would like to sell the railroad and she believes that someone will be interested in such a purchase in the not-so-distant future, especially if it looks as if the line is going to be connected to the Lower 48. She remarked that she would be willing to sell ARRC whenever someone wants to pay the state what it's worth. Number 1485 HAL COOPER testified via teleconference saying that Representative James has requested that he speak in support of HB 241. He said that HB 241 is a very necessary first step in beginning the connection of the rail lines between Alaska and Canada and the Lower 48. He felt that this proposal is a very useful and necessary step to develop the railway and create the corridor. PAUL TAYLOR, Professional Engineer, testified via teleconference. Mr. Taylor provided the following testimony: A key component of the location and economic strategy of an Alaska to British Columbia railway corridor will be the location of the route through the Central Yukon. I believe the Yukon extension investigation should focus on Whitehorse as a major terminal on the main track. Route selection studies should give intense examination of the line of track leading from the Ladue River Valley of the Alaska-Yukon border through the vicinity of Carmacks, Yukon. Then the track corridor would generally follow the Klondike Highway down to Whitehorse. Reasons for this routing are numerous. With Carmacks established as a terminal on the Alaska to British Columbia Transcontinental main line, the immediate Carmacks region provides the potential for serious mineral development. What is more is that link either by a branch line or continued utilization of the Robert Gamble Highway provides transportation to the Faro Roust (ph) River mineral sector, which adds even more freight potential to the Carmacks terminal. The railroad route from Carmacks to Whitehorse has been studied in detail in the past with the line of railroad shown to be superior in grade and alignment. Carmacks to Skagway route offers immense potential for tourism cruise trains. The Central Yukon route and economic feasibility investigation must include every port framing the engineering considerations, a conversion plan, and the economic consequences to covert the White Pass and Yukon route to standard gauge in order for the transcontinental railroad to be linked to the Port of Skagway, the Yukon's gateway. Carmacks to Skagway interconnection will be vital to the economic integration of the Alaska to British Columbia Railway. The mutimodal railroad corridor must, by its obvious benefits to the overall project, be included in any feasibility study of railroad construction in the Yukon. One could also argue that the Carmacks to Skagway corridor could be constructed independently, in advance of the Alaska Railroad extension to the Yukon. Mr. Taylor concluded by noting that he would mail other remarks to the committee this afternoon. Number 1223 DAVE BROADBENT (PH), Canadian Arctic Railway, testified via teleconference. He felt that HB 241 [provides the hope] that this railway will happen some day. He applauded Representative James' attempt, through HB 241, to promote the extension of the railway. He noted that once Canada gets going on this, it would headquarter any development in Canada out of Whitehorse. Number 1069 JOHN PORTSCHELLER testified via teleconference. Mr. Portscheller remarked that the most recent (indisc.) papers provide excellent examples for the arguments in opposition to HB 241. Reviewing the proposal from the civil perspective, environmental questions would have to be addressed well before route selection is discussed. However, he didn't see even a vague recommendation to address those factors in the legislation. Mr. Portscheller informed the committee that the area's fish and wildlife environmental organization representatives are staunchly opposed to this development. There are many reasons that support stepping back and taking a second look at such a proposal as this. He stated one reason: "If a large scale economic development like this is to go forward, it should stand the age-old litmus test of determining whether or not the private sector would push forward such a project." However, there seems to be little indication that the private sector in Alaska has the willingness or financial capability to take on such development. This seems to be a backward approach in that it essentially forces the project. Furthermore, Mr. Portscheller expressed the need to address environmental concerns and physical factors as well as considering the total privatization of such a project versus having the government take the lead. Number 0899 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that she has been working on this issue for nine years and has wondered when someone from the environmental community would object. She said that she hasn't had any objections before now. She expressed interest in meeting with Mr. Portscheller. MR. PORTSCHELLER said "we" would be interested in meeting with Representative James. He noted that he isn't affiliated with the local environmental or fish and game organizations and is speaking only as a member of the community of Tok. Number 0699 BILL BRITT, State Gas Pipeline Coordinator, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), testified via teleconference. Mr. Britt said that he has the following two concerns with HB 241: The first is that the bill does not allow the Department of Natural Resources to protect valid existing land rights on land that DNR would be required to convey to the Alaska Railroad. These rights could well include the TAPS (Trans-Alaska Pipeline System) right-of-way. We may not wish to transfer portions of the TAPS right-of-way even as we are processing an application for renewal of that right-of-way. Secondly, the bill does not allow the commissioner of DNR to reject portions of the corridor where there might be a greater state interest involved in the land such as a gas pipeline. The bill could, thus, complicate a gas pipeline project by: removing possible gas pipeline right-of-way from state ownership even as an application may be pending; removing possible construction material sites from state ownership; creating another landowner for portions of the right-of-way; and creating the possibility that the railroad would be granted condemnation authority over private lands that would be within a gas pipeline right-of-way. We may wish to retain as much control over the gas pipeline authorization process as possible at this stage in that project. And this bill appears, to me, to be contrary to that end. My colleagues in the Division of Mining, Land, and Water have expressed several other concerns. ... The first being that expenses associated with the transfer are not made clear; who bears those expenses? The second is: there ... is no ability for the (indisc.) to retain sub-surface rights on the lands that would be conveyed. And the third is: there appears to be no upper limit on the amount of land that could be required to be transferred. The corridor is described in the bill as at least 500 feet wide, but no maximum amount is identified. Number 0510 VICE CHAIR FATE asked if any thought had been given to a common corridor so that [the department] could facilitate a transportation facility for both gas and the railroad as well as any future considerations. MR. BRITT answered that there is no prohibition against more than one use of a transportation corridor. The rights-of-way the [department] grants are nonexclusive rights-of-way and thus more than one use can occur within a right-of-way as long as the uses are compatible. Such occurs frequently. Number 0444 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that [Mr. Britt's] testimony highlighted the reasons why the proposal won't work without any indication to help make it work. She said that she was willing to add any language to make this work. Furthermore, she assumed that the issues identified by Mr. Britt would be issues that the railroad, who would survey this route, would be reviewing. She didn't expect the railroad to travel over an already existing right-of-way. Moreover, Representative James emphasized that this corridor was present before there was talk of a gas pipeline not to mention that the railroad corridor will probably be present after the gas pipeline is finished. She expressed her belief that it is important that this [corridor] be done now and there should be some coordination. She mentioned that NASA had flown over this corridor with high-resolution photography because the federal government wants this railroad corridor and thus there may be federal money. Representative James said, "I'm really serious about this issue and I want some cooperation from DNR and other agencies of the state to make this happen." MR. BRITT clarified that he was commenting on HB 241 not the feasibility of an extension of the railroad. He said that he believes his aforementioned concerns have been communicated before, at least in the fiscal note. Therefore, there shouldn't be anything new in his testimony. Number 0116 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN related his understanding that HB 241 requires condemnation rights and many other requirements, yet there is no fiscal note because the expectation is that the railroad will secure the financing. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with that understanding. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to what the railroad must do. He asked if the railroad would have the ability to decline this. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES interjected that [HB 241] merely authorizes the railroad to do this. In further response to Representative Green, Representative James confirmed that she has spoken with the railroad. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES informed the committee that U.S. Senator Ted Stevens indicated to the railroad last year or so that he wanted the railroad to determine the cost to extend the railroad to Delta for a missile defense system. The railroad did determine the cost for such and some work had to be done for that, which she recalled was $250 million ... TAPE 01-45, SIDE A REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that when it comes to building a missile defense system, this proposed corridor would be advantageous in order to bring in the materials. Therefore, she suspected that there might be some federal money available for the corridor or perhaps some large railroad companies may be interested in this and may come to the table with money. She noted that there may also be some bonding possibilities. However, she clarified that she isn't present to do the financing. Number 0098 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern that in order to start this project the determination of where the line can go has to be made. Such work, as illustrated with the railroad's work on the Delta connection, is "no lean task." Therefore, a significant amount of money will be required to establish a feasible route or routes. Representative Green suggested that there are a sequence of events such as aerial photography to on the ground [surveys] to ownership that would take some time. Therefore, he indicated concern with the time it would take to do what is laid out in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES turned to U.S. Senator Murkowski's legislation. She explained that the Rails to Resources legislation authorized a bilateral commission, 12 Americans and 12 Canadians. There was a $6 million fiscal note on the US side to create this commission in order to perform a feasibility study in the next three years. At this point, "we" are waiting for the Canadians to pass the same legislation with a like fiscal note, after which the commission will be appointed and the feasibility study will be done. She estimated that it would probably cost about $10-$12 million to perform the feasibility study. However, Representative James pointed out that it will be difficult for the commission to perform a feasibility study if there is no authority to have any routes. Therefore, HB 241 is before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES informed the committee that Dr. Paul Metz, University of Alaska, has made some grant applications to perform a complete geological study of the existing rail from Fairbanks to Seward as well as "this" line. She presumed that he would obtain that grant and work on it this year. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that [the corridor] would provide room for all the different types of transportation and utility things that "we" want to go down the highway. This is the beginning in that it determines where that is and what works. The gas pipeline wouldn't need the same type of topography that a rail would. The topography is critical for a railroad. Number 0401 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN recalled [testimony] that there might be a commonality between the [gas] pipeline and the rail. He could see the commonality between the pipeline and the highway whereas the grades required for railroads aren't necessary for a pipeline or a highway. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed, but noted that she has been told that gas runs better when its flat. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that there are a myriad of pipelines that aren't flat. Representative Green expressed concern that HB 241 goes far beyond the feasibility aspect. He remarked on the need to do a feasibility study that would specify what type of land is where. Number 0500 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented on things being "studied to death." Representative James said: I want to have something that says we're going to go there. If you don't like the way the language is written, I'll fix it. ... I want to authorize, something on paper that authorizes the fact that there is an opportunity to have a rail corridor and a utility corridor going into Canada. And that's going to take something. If I can't get it out of the people who work for the state and I can't get it out of the legislature, there's no point in even talking about it. And we might as well tell Washington, D.C., we don't want any kind of industry, ... expansion, or ... economic activity in the state. You got to start some place. And I understand the biggest argument I have with people is where's the money going to come from. You know, if you have an ability to do something and there's an opportunity out there, somebody will come forward with the money. It just happens. ... I'm saying that you got to have an opportunity for people to ... see the opportunity before the money is going to come forward. ... There is nothing that cannot be accomplished if you really want to do it and if the desire of getting to the end result is there; and that's where I'm at. If we don't have some economic activity in this state, we're going to dry up. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that the people who offer the money do feasibility studies. The feasibility study would include "can you get there," the environmental concerns, and the economics. He said that he wouldn't have a problem with such; however, he suggested that [HB 241] goes far beyond that and assumes that a railroad [corridor] will be built. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES disagreed. In response to Vice Chair Fate, she announced that all references to "Whitehorse, Yukon Territory" in HB 241 should be changed to refer to "Whitehorse, Yukon." Number 0839 CO-CHAIR SCALZI moved that the committee adopt the following amendment: Page 1, line 2; page 3, lines 21, 22, and 25, Delete "Territory" There being no objection, the amendment was adopted. Number 0942 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report HB 241 as amended out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 241(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|