Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
02/27/2015 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR4 | |
| HB115 | |
| HJR6 | |
| HJR7 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 115 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 115-AK SOVEREIGNTY;US TRANSFER LAND TO ALASKA
1:11:58 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 115, "An Act relating to the transfer of public
land from the federal government to the state and to the
disposal of that land; and providing for an effective date."
1:12:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), labeled 29-LS0587\E, Bullard, 2/26/15, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version E was
before the committee.
1:12:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, Alaska State Legislature, as the
sponsor, introduced HB 115. He read from the following written
sponsor statement [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 115 enacts the Transfer of Public Lands
Act. The bill requires the United States to transfer
title to public lands to Alaska on or before January
1, 2017. This bill would also provide that if the
state transfers title to public lands to which it
received title from the federal government under the
Transfer of Public Lands Act, the state shall retain
50 [percent] of the net proceeds received by the state
and pay 50 [percent] of the net proceeds the state
receives to the federal government.
Although there are a number of state and federal
constitutional issues regarding the provisions
contained within the bill, this bill was introduced
since the 25 year deadline from the time Alaska was
admitted into the Union as provided within the
Statehood Act. PL 85-508 is long past. I believe
there is a breach of contract as well as a breach of
good faith since the state is still entitled to and
awaiting the transfer of the remaining 5.5 million
acres. Thus far the state has received patent to
about 99.5 million acres.
The state has 10.9 million acres of selections from
which to receive its 5.5 million acres of entitlement
as well as 10.2 million acres of top-filings that may
eventually become selections should applicable
withdrawals be lifted. These withdrawals come in
numerous varieties of federal action and processes.
Two common executive branch actions that created
withdrawals are Public Land Orders (PLOs issued by the
Department of the Interior and Executive Orders issued
by the President.
At this time according to the Department of Natural
Resources, there are approximately 222 million acres
within Alaska under federal ownership.
This bill is modeled after a Utah house bill, [House
Bill] 148.
1:16:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that according to a legal memo there
are several constitutional problems. He inquired whether some
of those are cured by the proposed committee substitute.
TOM WRIGHT, Staff, Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska State
Legislature, replied not so much according to the legal memo.
He said he doesn't think there is anything in the legal memo
that the sponsor could fix in this bill, but a lot of the
adaptations within the proposed CS were recommendations by the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The sponsor hasn't tried
to hide the constitutional issues and that is why the legal memo
was distributed.
1:17:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired whether anyone from the federal
government is available to answer questions.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO responded there is not.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR understood that the process is being worked
through but that the surveying process for the selected land
takes a lengthy amount of time and could be the reason for some
delays. She asked whether the sponsor has any information in
this regard and whether there is anything else outside of the
bill that the state can do to speed up the process.
MR. WRIGHT deferred to DNR for an answer.
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), concurred that the
surveying and transfer of the lands does take some time, but the
key issue for DNR is that so much of the potential federal lands
the state would like to choose from are locked up in these
federal withdrawals and Public Land Orders (PLOs). To speed up
the process the state needs the federal government to lift those
withdrawals so there is a bigger pool of lands for the state to
choose from.
1:20:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON observed that page 2, [line 2], of the
CS references the Ninth Amendment [to the Constitution of the
United States]. He inquired why this is included given it is a
Bill of Rights amendment related to personal liberties. He
understood the Ninth Amendment essentially says something like
"the previous eight amendments may not constitute all the
liberties of the American people."
MR. WRIGHT answered the Ninth and Tenth amendments are closely
aligned. The Ninth Amendment goes to the enumeration in the
constitution of certain rights that shall not be construed to
deny or discourage others retained by the people. The Tenth
Amendment deals with more of state rights. The sponsor thought
both were inclusive into the state sovereignty issue and didn't
want to miss anything.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON recalled that the first draft of HB 115
excluded national parks, but Version E doesn't do that. He
asked whether the Utah measure excluded national parks like
Zion, Bryce Canyon, Arches and other famous national parks that
he has yet to see.
MR. WRIGHT replied the Utah bill did exclude the national parks.
He said there are some national park lands that DNR would like
to have access to, according to the information he received.
However, he said, the sponsor is having second thoughts on the
national park inclusion, especially with these times of
budgetary deficits about whether the sponsor would want to take
those over. Thus, the sponsor is further exploring national
parks, but that is as far as the sponsor is willing to go at
this point in time.
1:22:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER understood the language in the legislation
doesn't mandate that the State of Alaska accept such things as
national parks, it allows the state and the agency to make
decisions whether it's in the best interest to accept land that
is made available to the state.
MR. WRIGHT responded correct.
1:23:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON drew attention to Version E, Section 4,
page 2, lines 26-27, which states: "LIFTING OF PUBLIC LAND
ORDERS; PERIOD FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION AND RESOURCE EVALUATION."
He inquired whether that is the federal government withdrawing
its claim for subsurface resources within the areas the federal
government is going to continue to own or is just exploration
ability so the state can evaluate the land and say which the
state would want to choose.
MR. WRIGHT answered it is to allow DNR to do evaluations as to
what mineral resources may be there and what might be available
for development. He deferred to DNR to answer further.
MR. FOGELS replied that those withdrawals and Public Land Orders
keep the state's selections from attaching. If they are lifted
and then the state's selections attach, the state can get
conveyance to the lands in fee simple subsurface and surface.
1:24:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR requested examples of these areas where
there is a Public Land Order that the state would want withdrawn
so that that land would become available for state selection.
MR. FOGELS responded one example is PLO 5150, which withdrew a
corridor along the original Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS)
right-of-way. He said it is a very big corridor that does not
need to be withdrawn from selections since the pipeline has been
constructed. Recently, as part of DNR's strategic and critical
minerals initiative, some work was done in that area and some
information was found that leads the department to believe there
is potential for rare earth elements along that corridor. So,
that is clearly a place that DNR would like to see the PLO
lifted so the state's selections can attach and the state could
get ownership of that land.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked what the process would be without this
legislation for communicating with the federal government about
a situation like the aforementioned.
MR. FOGELS answered that DNR's process, which it has been
undertaking, is to communicate with the Secretary of Interior
and asking the Secretary to lift these Public Land Orders. At
an Alaska regional level DNR works with the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) as BLM does its resource management plans, and
in those plans DNR will ask BLM to recommend lifting those
withdrawals as part of the BLM plan. But ultimately the
Secretary of Interior must put pen to paper to lift those
withdrawals.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired whether there is a process outside
of BLM's land use plans in which DNR can ask for a withdrawal
and, if so, whether that process requires the federal government
to respond to the state within a certain amount of time and
issue a decision within a certain amount of time.
MR. FOGELS replied DNR is not aware of any formal process with
any kind of structure to it, so it would be simply a matter of
writing letters. He said DNR has asked and has not gotten
anywhere.
1:28:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER observed the fiscal note currently in the
committee packet goes to the original bill and is not relevant
to Version E. He inquired whether Mr. Fogels can assure him
that a forthcoming fiscal note for Version E will also be an
indeterminate note.
MR. FOGELS responded he does not see any change in DNR's fiscal
note with Version E.
MR. WRIGHT added, "except for the analysis."
MR. FOGELS stated that except for the analysis the fiscal note
would be indeterminate.
1:29:12 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO opened public testimony on the bill. No one
in the committee room or on line wished to testify.
1:29:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR commented that it would be helpful to have a
federal government representative respond to questions at the
next hearing on the bill.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO understood Representative Tarr's concern, but
said he hopes to move the bill today. He said he has dealt with
this from a municipal level before and has typically found the
federal government to be nonresponsive.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON thanked the sponsor for considering the
national park issue, saying that that would be beneficial to the
bill because it would take off the table something that could be
very controversial and draw a number of people to oppose the
bill. He encouraged the sponsor to make the bill cleaner. He
added that when the federal government isn't listening, action
needs to be taken to hopefully stimulate some listening.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO confirmed the bill has another committee of
referral.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said that in his recent four years of
experience on Arctic policy, federal employees will talk as long
as it is not being recorded in a committee hearing. He said he
therefore thinks it unlikely that the committee would get their
comments on the record.
1:31:55 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO closed public testimony.
1:32:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said this bill speaks to some real and
perceived frustration. But, he added, he thinks he wouldn't
recognize his home state anymore if the bill were to pass. He
related that the legal opinion he has says Article XII, Section
12, makes this unconstitutional and describes why.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed her disappointment that in under
10 minutes the committee is going to work on and move a bill
that is substantial in nature and that has far reaching impacts.
She offered her hope that the committee can be more thoughtful
in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said he doesn't feel at all uncomfortable
about moving this bill forward as it sends a message to the
federal government that he is comfortable with. It is a
statement from the House Resources Standing Committee that it
believes that Alaska's statehood entitlement needs to be
fulfilled and fulfilled in a timely basis.
1:33:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER moved to report the proposed committee
substitute for HB 115, Version 29-LS0587\E, Bullard, 2/26/16,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
forthcoming indeterminate fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected, saying she thinks more time should
be given to deliberating the bill and hearing from additional
people. She pointed out that typically when the legislature
wants to communicate with the federal government it is done by
resolution rather than statute. So, if that is truly the intent
of this legislation, the committee should be considering a
resolution, not a far-reaching statutory change.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON also objected, stating he doesn't think
this needs more attention and he doesn't need to hear from the
federal government. He said he doesn't think there would be any
point in having Yosemite, Yellowstone, the Great Smoky
Mountains, all of it, and it is for those reasons he will be not
recommending the bill's passage.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER noted that the bill places provisions into
uncodified law, so it doesn't carry the full weight and
authority of a statute. As uncodified law it is an even
stronger statement than a simple resolution.
1:35:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, in response to Co-Chair Talerico,
maintained her objection by nodding yes.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Herron, Hawker,
Olson, Seaton, and Talerico voted in favor of the proposed CS
for HB 115. Representatives Tarr and Josephson voted against
it. Therefore, CSHB 115(RES) was reported out of the House
Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.