Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124

02/27/2015 01:00 PM RESOURCES


Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
*+ HB 115 AK SOVEREIGNTY;US TRANSFER LAND TO ALASKA TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 115(RES) Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
*+ HJR 4 OFFSHORE OIL & GAS REVENUE SHARING TELECONFERENCED
Moved HJR 4 Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
*+ HJR 6 FEDERAL CONTAMINATION OF ANCSA LANDS TELECONFERENCED
Moved HJR 6 Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
*+ HJR 7 OPPOSE ALEUTIAN NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHJR 7(FSH) Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled 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.                                                                                  

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HJR004A.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
SRES 3/20/2015 3:30:00 PM
HJR 4
HJR 4 Sponsor Statement.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
SRES 3/20/2015 3:30:00 PM
HJR 4
HB0115A.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 115
HB 115 Sponsor Statement.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 115
HB 115 FiscalNote.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 115
Draft A Legal Memo-HB 115.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 115
DNR Land Entitlement Brief 2 19 15 (2).docx HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 115
AS 38.05.125.docx HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 115
Leg Research-State Lands.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 115
PL85-508.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 115
South Carolina Resolution.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
State asks feds for transfer of 19,322 disputed acres on North Slope.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 115
HJR6 ver A.PDF HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 6
HJR 6 Sponsor Statement.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 6
HJR6 Supporting Documents-Unalakleet PCB.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 6
HJR6 Supporting Documents-Report to Congress. Hazardous Substance Contamination.pdf.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 6
HJR6 Supporting Documents-Pribilof Islands TDX.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 6
HJR6 Supporting Documents-Letter ANCVA.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 6
HJR6 Supporting Documents-ANCVA Resolution.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 6
HJR6 Supporting Documents-ANCSA Resolution.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 6
HJR6 Supporting Documents-AFN Resolution.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 6
HJR 7 CSHJR7 Sponsor Statement.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 7
HJR 7 CSHJR7(FSH) Version E.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 7
HJR 7 Explanation of Changes in CSHJR7(FSH).pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 7
HJR 7 Fiscal Note LEG-SESS-02-04-2015.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 7
HJR 7 NOAA 1.23.2015 Response to PEER.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 7
HJR 7 NOAA--The Sanctuary Nomination Process.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 7
HJR 7 PEER 12_22-14_Aleutian_Islands_NMS_Nomination.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 7
HJR 7 Proposed Boundaries--Aleutian Islands National Marine Sanctuary.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 7
HJR 7 Supporting Document--City of Adak Opposing ANIMS Nomination.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 7
HJR 7 Supporting Documents--Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove Resolution.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 7
HJR 7 Supporting Documents--Akutan Corporation--Letter of Opposition to an Aleutian Island National Sanctuary.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 7
HJR 7 Supporting Documents--Akutan Traditional Council--Letter of Opposition to an Aleutian Island National Marine Sanctuary.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 7
HJR 7 Supporting Documents--Aleutians East Borough Resolution.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 7
HJR 7 Supporting Documents--Aleutians East Borough Resolution.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 7
HJR 7 Supporting Documents--King Cove Corporation Opposition to AINMS.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 7
HJR 7 Supporting Documents--SWAMC Board Resolution FY15-04 AINMS Nomination.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 7
HJR 7 Version W.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HJR 7
CS HB 115 Draft E-RES.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 115
HB 115 Differences Between A and E Versions.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 115
HB 115 Utah HB148.pdf HRES 2/27/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 115