Legislature(2013 - 2014)BUTROVICH 205
02/28/2014 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB105 | |
| Confirmation Hearings | |
| Joe Balash, Commissioner Designee, Department of Natural Resources (dnr) | |
| Bruce Twomley, Commissioner, Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (cfec) | |
| Frederick Johnson, Board of Fisheries | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 105-QUITCLAIM LAND TO UNITED STATES
3:31:45 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced SB 105 to be up for consideration.
3:32:20 PM
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, sponsor of SB 105, said this "simple" bill
was drafted to settle a long-standing agreement between Natives
and Americans and now Alaskans over allotments that have been
promised for over 100 years. Alaska can be a help in settling
some of the title questions.
3:33:39 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said he was raised with several people who had
been involved in, claimed, or been refused Native allotments. He
knows a lot of people who had other claims from the federal
government, including homesteads, which were given to them
fairly rapidly while many Native allotments that had the same
promise were left languishing - sometimes because of the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) or because of people just not
understanding how to assert their right.
One of the principles that "gets his shoulder to this" is that
this is private land and Alaska doesn't have much of that, and
he would like to see the Natives who had these allotments
potentially given to them get settled.
Another issue of concern to him was that Alaska has title
problems on all kinds of land with the federal government and
these should be settled as a priority as well as a belated
promise before we start settling some of the other issues.
3:35:08 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said SB 105 takes an existing right,
potentially, and asserts it. The last page of the bill, page 4,
is where the state really becomes involved. It inserts:
(14) quitclaim land or an interest in land to the
federal government after a determination that the land
or the interest in land was wrongfully or erroneously
conveyed by the federal government to the state.
He said the state has over-selected at statehood, but prior to
that, families were given the right to select land under this
Native allotment. They have already had the ability to transfer
land under the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), but by
saying "you shall" he is making it a directive in this bill.
SENATOR COGHILL explained that some allotment lands have
erroneously been transmitted to the state but now have buildings
on them. So, they will hear testimony about how they will be
very difficult to transfer. They will also hear that there is a
lot of land that could be settled. Probably the reason it's
important to settle it now - and one of the other principles -
is families are dying and their claims are becoming
significantly diminished. Some fight even amongst their own
progeny over who should have the right to that land; now they
have to make a claim and agree together to make it. It just
makes it much more complex.
SENATOR COGHILL noted the Aguilar Decision, a court case that
sets some standards on the dispersion of this land under Tab 8.
3:38:25 PM
RYNNIEVA MOSS, staff to Senator Coghill, explained the tabs: one
is the sponsor statement and two is the bill itself. Section 4
is the repealer of the statute that makes the conveyance
permissive. Section 1 mandates that if land is wrongfully or
erroneous titled to the state, the state would quitclaim it back
to BLM so that it could be titled to the allotment owner.
Sections 2 and 3 are provisions that ensure subsurface rights to
that allotment property and that the land will not be designated
as agricultural land.
3:39:33 PM
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH asked how the term "erroneously" was arrived
at.
MS. MOSS explained that someone else had a claim to the property
prior to BLM deeding the land to the state. The Aguilar Case
actually preserved that further by saying a Native's use of an
allotment took priority over land selections made to the State
of Alaska under the Alaska Statehood Act.
SENATOR COGHILL added that many of these were being processed by
BLM under a temporary authorization when Alaska was doing the
land selection. One of the things that failed to hit the trigger
point was that a Native allotment is a valid existing right, and
that is what is being asserted in SB 105.
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH asked if the state over-selected.
SENATOR COGHILL replied that it received 103 million acres.
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH asked if that amount had been received.
SENATOR COGHILL answered no; we are about 5 million short. He
explained that significantly more land is being selected to have
the ability to trade land and make adjustments for uses like
mountaintops. A lot of it has to do with the rights-of-way for
the pipeline.
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH said she was still perplexed.
3:42:46 PM
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH said she didn't see a fiscal note but the
bill has a Finance referral and in her minimal search of federal
transfer to the state of its remaining allotment she found that
one of DNR's challenges was that any transfer had to be
surveyed, but the federal government couldn't afford it; and
that was somehow holding up the transfers and she wondered if
changing "may" to "shall" will require the legislature to pay
for it.
3:44:29 PM
MS. MOSS said that is a policy call the legislature would have
to make. It's quite possible that a portion of these Native
allotments are not with their proper owner, because they haven't
been surveyed by BLM - and they have to be surveyed by BLM
before they can give title.
SENATOR COGHILL said many of these had been in the making since
the 1930's and he was willing to explore whose responsibility
the cost was, but some of those things could maybe be
negotiated.
3:45:40 PM
MARTY PARSONS, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), explained the mechanics
behind Senator Fairclough's question about the over-selection of
land. He explained that the state was provided a certain amount
of entitlement under the Statehood Act and that was amended
through several pieces of federal legislation, the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) being one and the Alaska National
Interest Land Claims Act (ANILCA) being the other. Each one of
those provided them an opportunity to select additional lands
and in ANILCA they were allowed to over-select by a certain
amount as some of their selections were rejected because they
were set aside for the corporations to select; the state came
back and said it was really important to cover those selections.
So, the federal government allowed them to select another 25
percent over the state's entitlement. That sits out there on
lands that have public land orders that would keep the state
from having that land conveyed to it or lands that were set
aside for the corporations to select. As their entitlements are
completed, the state's top filings fall into place.
SENATOR COGHILL said he kept one other principal in mind, which
was making sure to not restrict good access in Alaska and the
RS-2477 is probably one of our best tools, but it is becoming
weaker. They are hard to prove and sometimes very contentious.
Probably a protocol will have to be set up for some allotments
outside of the RS-2477s. He said the people who have the right
to these allotments have been promised them for over a century
and our RS-2477s are getting cold by two centuries. We were
supposed to assert them at a drop dead time in the 1970s and the
people who used those in our lifetime are no longer able to help
assert them, so records are getting harder to keep.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked him to define RS-2477.
SENATOR COGHILL explained that it is a federal mining law from
the 1800s that carries that number. It said if you wanted access
to public land through private property, and you could
demonstrate that you could have that right of access based on
having used these old trails if they were used for commerce or
trade. In Alaska, certainly dog sleds were probably the primary
reason for doing that. The Richardson Road that became the
Richardson Highway was a mud trail to begin with and is an
example of an RS-2477. The Iditarod from Nenana to Nome is a
mail trail and that is also an RS-2477.
3:50:36 PM
SENATOR BISHOP asked how many parcels have yet to be conveyed.
MS. MOSS answered 303 parcels according to DNR's summary.
SENATOR BISHOP asked how many allotments were in Anchorage.
MS. MOSS answered that she didn't have specific numbers, because
they range from about 40 acres to 160 acres, but when the law
was repealed in 1971, roughly 10,000 Alaska Natives filed and
there were over 16,000 parcels of land. She explained that they
could file on more than one parcel as long as it didn't total
more than 160 acres.
3:53:16 PM
MS. MOSS went on to the third tab, which was the sectional
analysis. Tab four was a series of "white papers" the Tanana
Chiefs had provided that would answer some of their questions
about RS-2477s, which was part of the Mining Act in 1866. They
have also included a summary by the Tanana Chiefs of the Aguilar
Case and a map showing where the Native allotments are.
Tab five has the summary report they requested from DNR. Some
maps were also attached showing some of the conflicting areas
that they trying to get settled through conveyance or land
trades.
Tab six held resolutions from different organizations supporting
the bill. Tab seven was the actual federal law on Alaska Native
Allotments and Tab eight was the Aguilar Case. She added that
the Native allotments that Senator Coghill is trying to get
resolved have already been through a full series of steps that
are required by BLM and had already been approved.
SENATOR BISHOP asked if that meant the surveys were completed.
MS. MOSS answered no; but there are cases where the holdup is a
survey.
3:54:06 PM
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH asked of the 303 allotments that have been
transferred to the State of Alaska that should have recognized a
Native allotment is the federal government was willing to make
the state whole in the form of other acreage or cash.
MS. MOSS answered the state and BLM had entered into an MOU to
allow land swaps for Native allotments. However, the concern is
that DNR have a real good reason for refusing to deed these
Native allotments and Senator Coghill has asked for a breakdown
of each allotment so they know why each one had not been
quitclaimed.
SENATOR COGHILL said that DNR is looking for land swaps that
they can work with if - for instance - a highway has been built
through or some other public use has taken that land and made it
not usable.
3:55:55 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony.
3:56:18 PM
TOM HOSETH, Realty Officer, Bristol Bay Native Association
(BBNA), Dillingham, Alaska, supported SB 105. He said the Alaska
Native Allotment Act of 1906 gave Alaska Natives the right to
obtain legal title to up to 160 acres of land that they use.
Word was out that ANCSA, passed in December 1971, would repeal
the Allotment Act but it didn't and there were approximately
13,000 allotment applications and ANCSA did not repeal the
pending applications. Initially, the BLM rejected the allotment
applications if the land was located on land already selected by
the state. This continued up until 1979 when the federal court
ordered the BLM to process the applications in the Aguilar Case.
The court ruled that the Allotment Act provided a preference
right to all subsequent claims to the same land. Several more
decisions support that this preference right begins on the date
the land was first used and occupied by the applicants no matter
what date the application was filed. Therefore, the current rule
is Allotment applicants are entitled to the land they applied
for if their use began before the state selected the land.
Going forward to 2013, in an attempt to resolve some Aguilar
allotment cases that had been set aside, the state and BLM
announced they had entered into an MOU, which offers the
optional relocation of certain Native allotment parcels of lands
that were conveyed in error to the state. In early December
2013, the BLM provided them maps of about 8 million acres the
state opened for relocations. BBNA has prepared a more detailed
map for his region. He believed along with other service
providers that the relocation option would not resolve the
Aguilar cases, because they were only going to be offered to
certain cases and with a few exceptions the allotment applicants
would not want to relocate.
MR. HOSETH explained that SB 105 offers a solution to resolve
Aguilar allotments that were determined valid by BLM. Once these
re-conveyances are completed, Alaska will be in compliance with
the Statehood Act, Alaska's Constitution, the federal court
order in Aguilar v U.S., and the Alaska Native Allotment Act.
Furthermore, the Department of Interior will not have to sue the
state, which will save a large amount of time and resources. He
thanked Senator Coghill for sponsoring the bill.
4:01:01 PM
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH asked if the state needs to re-convey back to
the BLM the land to resolve the issue; it can't just give it the
allotment directly?
MR. HOSETH replied that the land needs to be re-conveyed and
then BLM will issue certificates to the allotment applicants.
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH said that BLM has limited resources at the
federal level, so she could see the state resolving its side of
the issue by conveying the land back to them, but then they are
stuck where there aren't enough resources to convey it back to
the proper allotment.
SENATOR COGHILL said the legal instrument is called a quit claim
deed, which means the claim is released and BLM is able to
manage it from there.
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH said the BLM hadn't been as quick to respond
to other requests the state has made, quit claim or not, and she
didn't want to set up false expectations.
MR. HOSETH said that in his area many surveys had already been
done for the cases that are still pending, so it wouldn't be
such a long process.
4:03:14 PM
SHEILA NEKETA, Land Management Specialist, Bristol Bay Native
Association (BBNA), Dillingham, Alaska, supported SB 105. She
explained that she works specifically on Native allotments in
her region for about 8.5 years. She assists the applicants
through the process with the BLM and the state DNR. According to
a BLM document there are about 301 pending Native allotments
pending throughout the state of Alaska; 43 valid Aguilar
allotments are located within the Bristol Bay Service Provider
boundaries. This means that BBNA Land Management Services works
with the applicants and their heirs (because a majority of the
heirs have been deceased; there are second heirs and sometimes
even third).
She explained that the BLM reviews and adjudicates the parcels
of land that the Native Allotment applicants have applied for.
Once they have determined that the claim is valid, if the land
has been given to the state of Alaska erroneously, the BLM will
request the land be returned from the state DNR. This means that
the DNR will be following their generalized land conveyance
policies and review the case that the BLM submits to them,
although the case has already been determined valid; the BLM
makes sure they do a survey before submitting the land to the
DNR. This can be a very lengthy process. She noted that the
Native Allotment applicants and/or heirs need to be in agreement
with the state DNR. While she has been working the Native
Allotment applicants have died in this process and their heirs
are waiting and some of those have died.
MS. NEKETA noted one compelling case, that of John Alexy who
died at 83 years while waiting for title to his land; one of his
heirs has died, and they did everything the DNR and the BLM had
asked, but unfortunately the state declined to re-convey and the
future of this case is uncertain. She said she supported SB 105
because it would assist not only this case but other cases
throughout the entire state concerned with this issue. She
thanked Senator Coghill for the bill and for being allowed to
speak.
SENATOR BISHOP asked her relationship is with the BLM.
MS. NEKETA said she has a very good working relationship with
the BLM; they ask for legal evidence which she helps the
applicants provide.
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH asked her to explain what kind of legal
evidence she provides to the BLM.
MS. NEKETA replied that the Native Allotment application is
valid, timely filed, and that the applicant did have exclusive
valid use and occupancy.
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH asked if that meant that papers were filed a
long time ago or that something active is happening now to re-
assert that claim.
MS. NEKETA replied that she does not provide new documentation;
they follow up with existing documents that were filed
originally to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or evidence
that it was submitted to the BIA.
4:10:09 PM
LUCY WEEDMAN, representing herself, Dillingham, Alaska, said she
was heir to the late John Alexy, who was her grandfather. At the
age of 53 he had applied for his Native allotment along with
some affidavits from two well-respected individuals of the
community confirming that he had been using the selected
property since 1930, a total of 83 years of documented use.
She said he brought her to his property when she was 10 years
old; she didn't realize at first that she would be inheriting it
someday. They still use the property today. Her grandfather
waited for the title to be transferred to him, but it never
happened. Her brother worked on the land and asking questions
about it and thirty-three years later she, her sister, her aunt
they have received one notice after another from the state DNR
and each heir had complied with all the different conditions,
but yet they pulled it out from under them. It angered and hurt
them, because the land is their life line. To date they have not
received title to the property.
4:14:15 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if she has a legitimate claim that has been
filed and if she is just waiting for this bill to pass.
MS. WEEDMAN answered yes.
SENATOR MICCICHE thanked Ms. Weedman for finding the courage to
testify.
4:15:02 PM
DESIREE DUNCAN, Native Lands Manager, Central Council, Tlingit
Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, supported SB 105. She said
Tlingit and Haida represents the Native land owners in the
Southeast region and they have over 29,000 tribal citizens. She
said she is also co-chair of the statewide Tribal working Group
which represents over 100 tribes; all the members in the group
support SB 105, because it is resolves all the Aguilar allotment
cases. The applicants and their heirs in their region and in the
state have been waiting over 40 years to receive the land they
used and occupied and that is rightfully theirs.
4:16:40 PM
MARSHA HOTCH, representing herself, Klukwan, Alaska, heir to her
father's, Willie Lee, allotment, who used the land since 1933,
supported SB 105. She read a letter from her father stating
their case. In 1955 he was given the certificate of allotment
for 111 acres; 40 acres was excluded even though they didn't
tell him until 1958 why: that it had been given to the state.
When the Aguilar case was decided, the 40 acres was reinstated
and it was one of the few approved during that case. And the
heirs are still waiting for that 40 acres.
4:19:38 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if they had received the 111 acres.
MS. HOTCH answered yes.
4:20:23 PM
EILEEN GRANT, Allotment Specialist, Tanana Chiefs Conference,
Fairbanks, Alaska, said she has 70 pending valid Aguilar
allotments, and supported SB 105. For most of the cases the
State of Alaska refuses to give the land back, because they
don't feel that they have to; they feel it's discretionary. Once
the BLM requests re-conveyance it sometimes takes the state 20
years to respond if they do at all. The few cases they do give
back, they have kept part of the land for things like section
line easements and rights-of-way. In most cases the applicants
have died because many of the cases are 40 to 100 years old. If
the applicants' use and occupancy started before the state
selection, they should not have to give up any of the land. She
said that some of the applicants or their heirs don't feel they
have the right to use the land, because they don't have title to
it.
4:24:03 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked them for their testimony, and finding no
further questions, closed public testimony.
SENATOR COGHILL closed by saying that those who testified showed
the exceeding frustration of a couple of generations trying to
lay claim to something. He felt that the state needed to honor
those allotments where it can. Surveying is one of the barriers
because of its cost, but he thought if everyone put their
shoulders to it, not one person would have to bear the total
cost. He was willing to work on those ways, but he was not
willing to sit and let this languish any longer.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if subsurface rights go with the surface
rights.
SENATOR COGHILL answered yes, for the most part.
SENATOR DYSON asked why someone from DNR hadn't come before the
committee to explain the other side.
MR. PARSONS responded that DNR staff continually works on this
issue on a regular basis. He explained that in many cases they
have resources, roads, and other items that either pre-date the
use and occupancy of a particular allotment that then needs to
be made subject to those under the Aguilar case. They have a
settlement release process they go through where either the
allotted or the heirs - if they don't re-convey 100 percent of
the "bundle of sticks" back to the federal government who would
then give it to the allotted - will not sign and return the
settlement release documents. In many cases settlement releases
have been sitting out for 10 to 20 years that have not been
signed and returned. But they still continue to work with those
individuals to try to get them signed. In many cases it's just
an iterative process back and forth between BLM, the state and
the allotted with the service providers trying to reach
agreements on what the re-conveyance will be subject to.
SENATOR DYSON asked if he had five times as many people working
just these issues could he clear them up in five years.
MR. PARSONS said they already have dedicated staff and he wasn't
sure more staff was the answer. One thing they must look at is
when land comes to the state, whether erroneously conveyed or
not, the statute requires DNR to go through a process, which
includes a public process and a finding to re-convey or dispose
of land. Many times information is in conflict with the allotted
and at that point the state has to work through the process of
determining whether there is another interest the state needs to
protect before giving it back to the BLM to give it to the
allotted and in many cases there are third party interests to
work with.
SENATOR DYSON asked what the legislature can do to eliminate
some of the state laws that inhibit getting these things
resolved.
MR. PARSONS said he couldn't think of much that could expedite
the process.
4:36:29 PM
SENATOR DYSON said he was sympathetic to the situation they are
in, but it seems intolerable because Senator Coghill was telling
them in SB 105 to do what they are already able to do.
MR. PARSONS said the state has attempted through an agreement
with BLM to allow an allotted voluntarily to take a parcel of
land that was in a legislatively designated area, for instance,
or some other area that was acceptable to them on state selected
land, which is still owned by the federal government. It is a
much simpler process.
CHAIR GIESSEL found no more questions and remarked that she
sincerely appreciated the work Senator Coghill was doing on this
issue. She was thrilled that the subsurface rights would go to
these property owners as a legacy.
SENATOR DYSON moved to report SB 105, version 28-LS0849\A, from
committee with attached fiscal notes and individual
recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.