Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/27/1995 04:15 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 27, 1995
4:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Eileen MacLean
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HJR 38: Relating to reauthorization of the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
CSHJR 38(FSH) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HJR 46: Endorsing development of the Falls Creek
hydropower project.
CSHJR 46(RES) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 312: "An Act relating to subsistence use of fish and
game."
CSHB 312(RES) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CSSB 16(FIN) AM: "An Act relating to the University of Alaska and
university land, authorizing the University of
Alaska to select additional state public domain
land, and defining net income from the University
of Alaska's endowment trust fund as 'university
receipts' subject to prior legislative
appropriation."
HEARD AND HELD
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID GRAY, Legislative Assistant
Representative Jerry Mackie
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 404
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-4925
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HJR 46
KYLE PARKER, Legislative Assistant
Speaker Gail Phillips
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 208
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-2689
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 312
GERON BRUCE, Representative
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99811-5526
Phone: 465-4100
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 312
JACK POLSTER
1506 Ocean Drive
Homer, AK 99603
Phone: Not Available
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked a question regarding HB 312
GEORGE IRWIN
Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc.
2801 Tudor Court
Anchorage, AK 99517
Phone: 274-3611
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 312
CALVIN SIMEON, Natural Resources Director
Association of Village Council Presidents
P.O. Box 219
Bethel, AK 99559
Phone: 543-3521
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 312
AL MCKINLEY, Representative
Grand Camp, Alaska Native Brotherhood
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-2061
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 312
SENATOR STEVE FRANK
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 518
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-3709
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor SB 16
JEFF PARKER, Representative
Alaska Sport Fishing Association/Alaska Trout Unlimited
1201 Hyder
Anchorage, AK 99507
Phone: 274-5418
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16
ERUK WILLIAMSON, Representative
Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee
12720 Lupine Road
Anchorage, AK 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16
CLIFF EAMES, Representative
Alaska Center For The Environment
519 W. 8th, No. 201
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: 274-3621
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16
LAUREN CARLTON, Co-Chairperson
Student Legislature
Kachemak Bay Branch of the Kenai Peninsula College-
University of Alaska
P.O. Box 198
Homer, AK 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 16
DON CORNELIUS
P.O. Box 1727
Petersburg, AK 99833
Phone: 772-4864
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16
BONNIE WILLIAMS
1335 Sunny Slope
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Phone: 455-6652
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 16
DAN RITZMAN, Boreal Forest Coordinator
Northern Center For The Environment
218 Driveway
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16
COLIN READ, Representative
University of Alaska Faculty
653 Love Road
Fairbanks, AK 99712
Phone: 488-7117
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 16
MARIE BEAVER
P.O. Box 80433
Fairbanks, AK 99708
Phone: 479-8129
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16
BRIAN ROGERS
100 Cushman St., No. 388
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Phone: 457-4209
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 16
SEAN MCGUIRE
351 Cloudberry Drive
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Phone: 479-7134
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16
NICO BUS, Legislative Liaison
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-2406
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16
SARA HANNAN, Executive Director
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16
WENDY REDMAN, University Relations
University of Alaska
P.O. Box 155000
Fairbanks, AK 99774
Phone: 474-7211
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 16
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 38
SHORT TITLE: MAGNUSON FISHERY CONSERVATION & MGMT ACT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) AUSTERMAN, Navarre, Grussendorf
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/24/95 895 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/24/95 895 (H) FSH, RESOURCES
04/05/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/05/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/10/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/12/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/12/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/18/95 1349 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 4DP
04/18/95 1349 (H) DP: G.DAVIS,ELTON,OGAN,AUSTERMAN
04/18/95 1349 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)
04/27/95 (H) RES AT 04:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 46
SHORT TITLE: ENDORSING FALLS CREEK HYDROPOWER PROJECT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACKIE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/26/95 1528 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/26/95 1528 (H) RESOURCES
04/27/95 (H) RES AT 04:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 312
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND CURRENT SUBSISTENCE LAW
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PHILLIPS,Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/19/95 1366 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/19/95 1367 (H) RESOURCES
04/25/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/25/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/27/95 (H) RES AT 04:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 16
SHORT TITLE: INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) FRANK,Kelly,Sharp,Rieger,Miller
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 17 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/6/95
01/16/95 17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 17 (S) CRA, RES, FIN
01/20/95 60 (S) COSPONSOR(S): RIEGER
02/15/95 (S) CRA AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/20/95 (S) CRA AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/20/95 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
02/22/95 365 (S) CRA RPT CS 2DP 3NR SAME TITLE
02/22/95 366 (S) FISCAL NOTES (F&G, DNR, UA)
02/22/95 366 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES (REV-2)
03/03/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
03/10/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
03/10/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/17/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/17/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/20/95 695 (S) RES RPT 3DP 1DNP 1NR (CRA)CS
03/20/95 696 (S) FN (DNR)
03/20/95 696 (S) PREVIOUS FNS (F&G, DNR, UA)
03/20/95 696 (S) ZERO FNS (REV-2)
03/23/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/23/95 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/27/95 788 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 1DNP 2NR SAME TITLE
03/27/95 789 (S) FNS TO CS (DNR, F&G)
03/27/95 789 (S) ZERO FN (REV)
03/27/95 789 (S) PREVIOUS FNS (UA, DNR)
03/27/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/28/95 (S) RLS AT 12:20 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/28/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/10/95 956 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/10/95
04/10/95 958 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/10/95 958 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/10/95 958 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/10/95 958 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/10/95 958 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 16(FIN) AM
04/10/95 958 (S) COSPONSOR: MILLER
04/10/95 959 (S) (S) ADOPTED ZHAROFF LETTER OF
INTENT
04/10/95 959 (S) PASSED Y11 N9
04/10/95 959 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/11/95 983 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
04/11/95 984 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/12/95 1276 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/12/95 1277 (H) CRA, RESOURCES, FINANCE
04/25/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/26/95 1557 (H) CRA REFERRAL WAIVED
04/27/95 (H) RES AT 04:00 PM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-58, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman
Williams at 4:15 p.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Williams, Ogan, Austerman, Barnes, and Kott.
Members absent were Representatives Green, Davies, MacLean, and
Nicholia.
CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced there was a quorum present.
(Representatives DAVIES, NICHOLIA, and GREEN joined the committee.)
HJR 38 - MAGNUSON FISHERY CONSERVATION & MGMT. ACT
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHJR 38(FSH)
with zero fiscal note out of committee with individual
recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES OBJECTED for the purpose of reading the
resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
HJR 46 - ENDORSING FALLS CREEK HYDROPOWER PROJECT
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT made a MOTION to MOVE CSHJR 46(RES) with
attached fiscal note out of committee with individual
recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED.
DAVE GRAY, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE,
PRIME SPONSOR, said HJR 46 is to encourage the community of
Gustavus and the Gustavus Electric Company's efforts to get a low
power hydroproject going in the Gustavus area. He stated the site
happens to be just inside the boundaries of the National Park
Service (NPS) and will require the NPS to allow it to happen on
their land. He noted there has been encouragement from Washington,
D.C. that they would like to entertain the possibility of this
project.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if there have been any discussions with
the NPS at this point.
MR. GRAY replied this is not a new project but one that has been
worked on for at least two years. He said there have been
discussions with the NPS by residents in and around Gustavus, as
well as the Gustavus Electric Company. He explained there has been
interest in Washington, D.C. to not be so adamantly against this
type of project, particularly a project which could benefit the NPS
directly.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES questioned what impact the project would have
on the park.
MR. GRAY noted in committee members folders there are letters of
support from people who are very sensitive to the park's purpose
and the environment around Gustavus. He said the project is closer
to Gustavus not where the cruise ships go, etc. He felt the impact
would be minimal, at best.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified the project is not deep inside the
park, but rather at the entrance.
MR. GRAY replied the project is right next to Gustavus and is in
the same area the community of Gustavus would like to do a solid
waste disposal area.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT WITHDREW his MOTION.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHJR 46(RES).
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a MOTION to MOVE CSHJR 46(RES) with
attached zero fiscal note out of committee with individual
recommendations.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
HB 312 - EXTEND CURRENT SUBSISTENCE LAW
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted there was a committee substitute for HB
312.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 312(RES).
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said at the last hearing, the committee
learned that the Administration was not in favor of leaving the law
open-ended. In discussing this opposition with the sponsor of HB
312, she suggested a one-year extension which is what is contained
in the committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA said she did not have a problem with
the extension. She asked if Section 9 of the 1992 law is kept and
is extended for one more year, will that require Governor Knowles
to do the review of the 1992 subsistence law.
GERON BRUCE, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
(ADF&G), replied yes. He said the Administration has already begun
taking steps in that the Governor has asked Lieutenant Governor
Ulmer to begin work, which the Governor has described as quiet
diplomacy, to bring a group of people together to discuss potential
solutions to the subsistence conflict in the state and propose
those solutions to the legislature.
Number 249
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA wondered if additional funds will be
required for HB 312 and the Governor's plan.
MR. BRUCE stated the effort will require funds. He added that the
effort is being headed up by the Governor and he did not know what
funding source had been identified for the effort. He said in
regard to the fiscal impact on ADF&G relating to HB 312, he did
feel the impact would not be on the department, but rather the
Administration.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND CSHB 312(RES) by
adding a new Section 2 that would modify the language in Section 9
of the Special Session Law 1992, subsection (d). He stated
presently Section 9 reads "(d) No later than September 1, 1994, the
governor shall provide a report to the legislature on the results
of the review and proposed recommendations for statutory
amendments." He moved to change the date to February 1, 1996.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN OBJECTED.
Number 283
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she would oppose the motion because HB
312 simply changes the sunset of the 1992 law.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated the motion is a simple conceptual
amendment. He said the reason for the amendment is the intent to
leave Section 9 in effect has been acknowledged. He noted the date
contained in that Section has gone by. He said his amendment will
require the Governor to issue the report by February 1, 1996.
Since the sunset provision is October 1, 1996, that would give the
legislature a chance to consider the results of his study in a
rational way.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES felt the amendment was not necessary
KYLE PARKER, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, SPEAKER GAIL PHILLIPS, PRIME
SPONSOR, said his understanding of what the Governor is doing with
his efforts on the quiet diplomacy go beyond what is in the 1992
law. He stated if the report to be conducted under the 1992 law is
of some concern to the committee, instead of extending the time in
which that report can be presented, perhaps the committee should
eliminate Section 9 altogether. He believed the Governor's review
of the subsistence issue is much broader in scope than that
envisioned under the 1992 law.
Number 324
MR. BRUCE stated the review required in the 1992 Special Session
Law indicates a focus on the experience gained in implementing the
act and the regulations adopted under the act. He noted the
section also mentions the importance of the subject and the vital
concern the issue is, so he felt it was unclear how broad of a
review is required. He reiterated it is clear that the
Administration intends to conduct this type of effort and has
placed a lot of importance on it. He thought it might be helpful
to have Section 9 extended also, so it is clear the legislature is
also supporting the effort to look for advice from the public and
all parties on how to address the subsistence issue in the future.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS reiterated that in talking with the sponsor of
HB 312, she agreed to a one-year extension. He stated there is
something going to be done on the subsistence issue.
MR. PARKER stated ADF&G had testified they would support a one-year
extension, which is what the Lieutenant Governor has said as well.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said the amendment makes the language
consistent with the one-year extension.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Representative Davies to review the
amendment again.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained on page 8, line 4 of the 1992
Special Session Law, he proposes changing the date from September
1, 1994, to February 1, 1996.
Number 383
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said the bill would sunset October 1, 1996,
and Representative Davies' amendment would require the report
February 1, 1996. She said she would not object to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the AMENDMENT PASSED.
Number 405
JACK POLSTER, HOMER, testified via teleconference and said he sent
Speaker Phillips two pages of testimony. He wondered if the
committee had received it.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said they did not.
MR. POLSTER stated government, in allowing action by the residents,
should be able to define whether they are allowing a permitted act
or protecting a right. He asked if the protection of a right, i.e.
subsistence is being dealt with, or is a privilege being extended.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said the committee is in the process of
extending the effective date of the current subsistence law from
October 1, 1995, to October 1, 1996.
MR. POLSTER felt a larger issue is being dealt with, that being the
issue of subsistence. He thought it would be an opportune time to
have his question answered.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated the committee is not dealing with the
subsistence issue at the present time. He asked Mr. Polster to
repeat his question.
MR. POLSTER wondered if there was legal counsel present at the
meeting. He asked the committee if subsistence is a right or a
privilege.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated legislative legal counsel was present.
She said under the state's Constitution the resources belong to all
the people and she stressed the committee is not debating that
question, but rather debating whether or not to extend the present
law or revert to the prior law which was on the books while a study
comes forth.
MR. POLSTER clarified the committee does not know whether it is
dealing with a right or a privilege.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she does know.
MR. POLSTER stressed he would like to have the answer. He said he
took time off of work to come to the hearing to get an answer to
the question. He assumed subsistence is a right. He stated he had
an argument which was part of the two pages of testimony he sent to
Speaker Phillips with the suggestion that the legislature's dilemma
in regard to the subsistence issue is in part a result of the
failure to define if the state is protecting a right or extending
a privilege. He stressed when the state is granting action to a
citizen, it has to be one or the other and the legislature has to
be able to define what its intent is. He felt there is a definite
difference between the two. He thought the definition is necessary
for the ultimate resolution of the dilemma, which is a result of
not defining the purpose of the action.
Number 462
MR. BRUCE felt the question would be more appropriately addressed
to a legal person, not to an employee of ADF&G.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Bruce to explain to Mr. Polster what
HB 312 does.
MR. BRUCE stated the law enacted in the Special Session in 1992
contained a sunset clause which becomes effective shortly if HB 312
is not enacted. He said what is being proposed is to extend the
current law during a period of time which people of goodwill across
the state can try to develop a consensus of how to manage fish and
wildlife in the state to satisfy subsistence use and other uses.
He pointed out HB 312 will provide additional time for people to
work on the issue while maintaining the status quo. He felt the
question Mr. Polster asked would be appropriately asked of the
study group that is looking at the issue and people with a legal
background.
MR. POLSTER stated he has asked those individuals, agents of the
state, and legislators to answer the question without any results.
He said he did not come to the meeting naive as he understands the
reality of life but on the other hand, this is public testimony and
public record and individuals in the state believe they have a
common law right to subsist. He pointed out the revolution of the
problem in the past has resulted from an equivalent of a jury of 12
individuals, the state, and the federal government recognizing the
natural common law right of a particular individual of the state to
subsist under Uniform Commercial Code 1-207.
Number 508
GEORGE IRWIN, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES, INC.
(AFN) testified via teleconference and stated AFN urges the
Nineteenth Alaska Legislature not to enact HB 312. He said HB 312
will do nothing to resolve the real issue of subsistence in Alaska,
which is the federal/state impasse over the rural preference and
the steadily expanding loss of state authority over its own
resources.
MR. IRWIN pointed out in 1992, the Hickel Administration tried to
force on the Native community a new system of subsistence
eligibility which, if enacted, would have dismantled village
economies and social structures. That plan was firmly rejected,
and all the former administration could get was bits and pieces of
an anti-subsistence statute. He said the administration got the
power to designate huge regions of the state as nonsubsistence use
areas in which sport and commercial uses were to be protected from
all other competition and no Alaskan, no matter how great his or
her need, could hunt or fish for food. That plan also got a
definition of customary trade, a definition of customary and
traditional uses, and a reasonable opportunity standard of
subsistence protections--none of which are adequate to the state's
needs or complies with federal law.
MR. IRWIN stated nonsubsistence use areas have been struck down as
unconstitutional by the superior court. That ruling will likely be
upheld by the Alaska Supreme Court, in which case the state
government will not enjoy that power regardless of what the
legislature does on HB 312. He said the 1992 statute also provided
an automatic sunset on October 1, 1995, and required an in-depth
analysis of the 1992 law's implementation, including specific
policy recommendations, prior to further legislative action. He
pointed out no such analysis has ever been conducted, and the
legislative leadership's determined neglect of the entire issue has
now brought it face to face with its own deadline. He noted HB 312
therefore proposes to renege on the commitments of 1992, to hide
from difficult policy choices and continue applying last minute
band-aids to every hemorrhage of state sovereignty.
MR. IRWIN stressed AFN urges the legislature to reject HB 312
because it is inadequate to the state's needs, because it is anti-
subsistence in intent and effect, and because it means this
legislature has no intention of taking its responsibilities on the
most divisive issue in state politics.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN recalled that Mr. Irwin had said the state
created areas that were only for sport hunters and also said those
areas were off limits to anyone hunting and fishing for food. He
noted for the record he is a sport hunter but he does hunt for food
and eats what he kills.
Number 554
CALVIN SIMEON, NATURAL RESOURCES DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE
COUNCIL PRESIDENTS (AVCP), testified via teleconference and
expressed opposition to HB 312. He said the bill restricts
subsistence by requiring nonsubsistence use areas. He pointed out
that section of the bill is unconstitutional and will be upheld by
the Alaska Supreme Court. He told committee members they are about
to pass an unconstitutional bill.
MR. SIMEON said the Boards of Game and Fisheries have not
implemented this law fairly. He pointed out in 1993, the Board of
Game declared a large portion of game management unit 19 as a
nonsubsistence use area. The unit 19 area is located along the
southern base of the Kuskokwim River and supports moose, caribou,
sheep and bear. He stressed the area was clearly used for
subsistence and was depended on quite heavily by rural residents.
MR. SIMEON noted the Board of Game implemented the law on the
premise of designating the area as a nonsubsistence use area. The
board left it up to the rural community to prove the area was used
for subsistence and was not eligible to be designated as a
nonsubsistence use area. He explained the burden of proof was put
on rural communities and the villages were once again placed in a
position of defending its residents way of life. He said this is
an example of the board not understanding subsistence but promoting
the commercial viability and exploitation by sport hunting.
MR. SIMEON stated the AVCP is committed to resolving the
subsistence issue and feels the issue will not be resolved by the
state attempting to buy time with an unconstitutional bill. He
added AVCP feels HB 312 is gutless and of little use. The bill
will not buy the state any time because recent court decisions
place the federal government in a position of not only managing
game resources but also fish resources. He pointed out in the end,
the law created more problems than it solved. He felt it would be
more fair to call the law the employment act for lawyers. The law
resulted in the Boards of Game and Fisheries at the brink of
managing the entire fish and game management structure out of a
job.
Number 590
AL MCKINLEY, REPRESENTATIVE, GRAND CAMP, ALASKA NATIVE BROTHERHOOD
(ANB), said ANB encompasses 19 villages and over 20,000 Natives
throughout Southeast Alaska. He stated ANB agrees with the
comments made by the AFN. He noted the report on the
implementation of the 1992 subsistence law prepared by ADF&G was
good. However, the law is not in compliance with the Alaska
National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA). Therefore, he
felt passing HB 312 will not do anything.
MR. MCKINLEY stated in 1992, the Native people agreed with the
sunset clause because they knew there were major issues needing to
be addressed. They gave the state enough latitude to act on the
subsistence law but nothing has happened. He felt if a one-year
extension is given, nothing much will change. He noted the Katie
John case is there and in the meantime, there is no attempt being
made to move ahead by the state. He did not feel there should be
a one-year extension.
MR. MCKINLEY said in 1950 when he was a child working with his dad
in Hoonah, the Native people supported the state system of managing
the state's resources. In 1978, when the subsistence law came into
existence, it went in a different direction and now the state is
back at the point where it started. He noted in 1951, his father
was involved with subsistence and the fisheries. Traps were
eliminated in order to have better management of the resources in
the state. He told committee members he has heard legislators say
there is no treaty. He disagreed. He stated there is a treaty
session which says the civilized tribe shall never be disturbed.
MR. MCKINLEY stated ANB would like to work with the legislature and
the Governor on the subsistence issue. He said the only solution
is to amend the state Constitution to coincide with ANILCA.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. McKinley if he thinks it is
possible to come up with a solution the legislature would agree
with and be acceptable to a large number of the people in the state
of Alaska by end of the current session.
MR. MCKINLEY replied with the Katie John case there is a clear
picture as to where the state is headed.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated he appreciates Mr. Mckinley's
frustration and agrees with most of what he said--that there has
not been a solid effort by the legislature to address the
subsistence issue. He asked Mr. McKinley, given the divisiveness
of the issue and the polarization which exists currently, is it
possible to come up with a consensus solution by the end of the
session.
MR. MCKINLEY responded the previous governor tried to work out a
solution in June 1994 by calling a special session but no action
was taken by the legislature. He felt ample time has been given.
He stated the solution is to have everyone get together in a room
and not come out until a solution is reached.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES agreed. He added he is supporting the one-
year extension for the same reason he voted against HJR 33. He
believes the legislature should not take any substantive action
that moves the debate from one direction to the other, absent a
consensus position. He sees the extension as preserving the status
quo so the quiet diplomacy the Governor has initiated can proceed.
He hoped by the time the legislature meets next year and perhaps
even sooner, a consensus position will be reached.
TAPE 95-58, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. MCKINLEY reiterated the Native people concurred with the sunset
but no action has been taken. He noted many of his constituents
have not received the committee substitute. He felt there had been
enough time to act on the legislation.
Number 050
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she had spent a lot of time over the
past 18 years dealing with this issue. She agreed it has been an
issue debated and contested on all sides. She talked to Lieutenant
Governor Ulmer and others who believe they need a chance to sit
down and work with all sides to determine if a resolution can be
reached. She did not feel HB 312 does anything more than that--it
does not affect subsistence any more than what is already on the
books. HB 312 simply allows the status quo to be left on the books
for one year.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES expressed support for HB 312. She felt time
is needed for the review and for the Governor to work on the issue.
She stated she has given names of people on the opposite side to
the Lieutenant Governor who are willing to discuss the issue. She
thought it might be possible to get a group of people together to
reach a resolution to one of the most divisive issues in the 17
years she has been a legislator.
MR. MCKINLEY noted he has worked with Representative Barnes and
others for a long time on this issue. He said a system was worked
out but it was shot down by the Alaska State Supreme Court.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN recalled Mr. McKinley had mentioned a treaty
session and wondered what that was.
MR. MCKINLEY replied that was when the United States purchased
Alaska from Russia. He said there is a provision in the treaty
session which refers to Natives as a civilized tribe. There is a
section in the treaty session which says Natives shall not be
disturbed. He stated it is not possible to annul that section
unless the entire treaty is annulled and Alaska is given back to
Russia.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN clarified the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA) is a compact between Alaska Natives and the U.S.
government, in which the Alaska Natives agreed to an exchange of 40
million acres and $1 billion to extinguish all aboriginal hunting
and fishing rights.
MR. MCKINLEY replied that is not true. He said the authority was
given to the Secretary of Interior to make his decision including
Alaska, but the Secretary did not do what he was supposed to do.
Therefore, that is when ANILCA came into being. He stated the
records at Congress stipulate that Alaska Natives will have
protection and priority in rural communities. He noted subsistence
has nothing to do with the land.
Number 133
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN clarified Alaska Natives were paid close to $1
billion and 44 million acres of land in the exchange.
MR. MCKINLEY responded they were not. He said a land transaction
has nothing to do with subsistence.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated the correct figures are $976 million,
44 million acres of land, and $500 million from the state. She
said the phrase Representative Ogan is referring to says that in
describing all the sections of ANILCA it says in the preamble that
all aboriginal hunting and fishing rights are extinguished under
this section. She pointed out there are some Native communities in
Alaska that did not participate in ANILCA. Those that did not
participate feel they did not extinguish anything. Some of those
who did participate do not believe that there was any extinguishing
of rights either.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said it was ANCSA not ANILCA.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a MOTION to MOVE HB 312, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA OBJECTED.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA stated she will not support HB 312 based on
the fact that the Boards of Fisheries and Game have proven to be a
disaster to the rural residents in Alaska. She noted Governor
Hickel did not do the review as agreed on.
Number 190
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said during the entire time Governor Hickel
was in office, there was a lot of work done on the subsistence
issue. She stated perhaps there was not a formal review done but
the Administration was constantly in debate over the issue.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN made a MOTION to AMEND HB 312 to change the date
contained in Special Session Law 1992 on page 7, line 26 from June
1, 1994, to February 1, 1996, and asked for unanimous consent.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor
of the motion to move HB 312, as amended, out of committee were
Representatives Austerman, Barnes, Davies, Kott, Ogan, Green, and
Williams. Voting against the motion was Representative Nicholia.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS passed the gavel to CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN.
SB 16 - INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
Number 233
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the committee has for its working document
CSSB 16(FIN) AM, version F.
SENATOR STEVE FRANK, PRIME SPONSOR, said SB 16 is a bill introduced
again this year. He noted last year the bill moved through the
Senate, through the House and was scheduled on the House floor but
did not get a vote because of adjournment. He explained the
purpose of SB 16 is to increase the university's land grant. The
university is a land grant university. The university's current
land grant is 112,000 acres and is the smallest land grant of any
other western public land state. He pointed out SB 16 would bring
the university's land grant to over 1 million acres including the
amount the university currently has. He noted this land grant
would not be the biggest, as other states have higher land grants.
SENATOR FRANK stated SB 16 would allow the university to continue
to move on resource development as a source of income. He noted
the bill would not make a big difference on the short-term, but in
the intermediate to long-term, it would be a significant source of
revenue to the university and help the university continue to
diversify away from the general fund for financial support. He
said an attempt was made to make the bill flexible so it would not
run into problems with existing land uses. No legislatively
designated areas would be subject to selection such as parks,
refuges, etc. Oil and gas lands, mental health trust lands, and
municipal lands or any lands the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) commissioner expected to be selected by municipalities would
not be available.
SENATOR FRANK said the language in SB 16 gives a great deal of
authority to the DNR commissioner to withhold any lands if it is in
the state's best interest. He stated if there is a dispute, there
will be no litigation over it--the Regents can appeal to the
Governor but it can no further than that. He urged the committee
to support SB 16.
Number 308
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted in the findings section, a reference is
made to the fact that most land grant colleges in the western
states received more land from the federal government than the
University of Alaska. He felt that seemed to be a wrong done by
the federal government to the university, not one done by the
state. He said before the state gives 1 million acres of state
land to the university, out of the state's 102 million acres,
perhaps there should be work done to get another 1 million or 2
million acres out of the federal government.
SENATOR FRANK replied the university is going to ask. However, he
does not want to make that a contingency. He said if a further
grant is made to the university, it will enhance the university's
chances with the federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what kind of land will be involved and
what process will be used to select the land.
SENATOR FRANK stated the university will have to select the lands
and will want to select lands having the greatest potential for
generating revenue. He noted he was not sure where the land would
be located. The university is trying to diversify the character of
their land grant. He said it is clear, with the way the bill was
drafted, the university will have to work with DNR closely. If the
university is doing something the public does not want, the
Governor, through the commissioner, or the Governor himself can say
no. He stressed he would like to see the university find lands
that would be productive and have them develop the lands
responsibly for the benefit of the people.
SENATOR FRANK noted there are several proposed amendments. He did
not object to any of the amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered if language could be put in the bill
providing that when the university starts developing lands and
getting income, they would be forced to put some money in deferred
maintenance.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted there were nine people to testify. He said
since there has been considerable dialogue exchanged on the bill
already, if anyone testified previously, they should identify
themselves, give a brief review of what they said previously, so
other people who have not previously testified can testify.
Number 392
JEFF PARKER, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA SPORT FISHING ASSOCIATION/TROUT
UNLIMITED, testified via teleconference and stated his
organizations are strongly opposed to SB 16. He said the main
concern is the bill will result in selections of lands important
for recreational fisheries and habitat for fish and wildlife. He
noted the legislature has already conceded that lands very valuable
for oil and gas and minerals are not going to be conveyed to the
university, which means recreational lands will be selected.
MR. PARKER said his organizations recommend the committee ask the
university to identify what lands it wants, which is only fair to
the public. He stated if he was a student from the university, he
would be embarrassed to see the university not willing to put the
issue of what lands are involved on a level playing field with the
public. He felt SB 16 is also a run around the constitutional
prohibition against dedicated funds because this is money dedicated
to the university. If the state sold these lands itself under a
dedicated fund provision such as this, it would be
unconstitutional.
MR. PARKER stated what is lacking is any evidence that SB 16 can
create any significant infusion of revenue for the university over
a long term. He noted his organizations are not opposed to funding
the university adequately. He said the university has shown it
receives about $8 million from its existing land base, and 75
percent of that comes from one-shot timber sales. He pointed out
the current university budget is approximately $300 million from
all sources, which means over time the university will fund less
than 1 percent of its budget from land, while creating problems for
subsistence, commercial and sport fishing, recreation, guided,
unguided, floats and motorized users.
MR. PARKER said if municipal selections are on the table, almost
every municipality in the state (indiscernible) select and receive
title to all of its land, which means even if SB 16 is passed, the
university could not select any land because the prior municipal
(indiscernible) has to be fulfilled. Therefore, he felt there is
no rush. He urged committee members to not pass SB 16.
Number 440
ERUK WILLIAMSON, REPRESENTATIVE, ANCHORAGE FISH AND GAME ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, testified via teleconference and stated SB 16 would
generate a pittance of revenue for the university for only a short
term. He said logging and selling of state lands, which are a
pride and (indiscernible) wildlife habitat will aggravate the
shrinking of these resources, while the demand steadily rises. He
felt recreational access will be reduced by granting land to
private holdings. He stressed SB 16 will create more conflict
between user groups than over habitat loss.
MR. WILLIAMSON pointed out these lands have the potential to
sustain various subsistence, recreational, and commercial uses
through wise planning. Logging and privatization precludes these
long term benefits. The time and fate of subsistence and
nonsubsistence uses is a (indiscernible) to reduce the amount of
valuable habitat and recreational land available. He urged
committee members not to support a bill which offers minuscule
short-term economic benefits while robbing future generations of
Alaskans of subsistence, recreation and sustainable resource use.
Number 461
CLIFF EAMES, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA CENTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT,
testified via teleconference, and stated while he supports the
university, he also supports other state programs and services
which would be disfavored by SB 16. He said SB 16 will provide an
illegal dedicated fund. Whether SB 16 is illegal or not, it will
close options for the future use of revenues and lands. He noted
a development colleague recently said if lands are retained in
general public ownership, everybody gets a bite of the apple. He
pointed out that will not happen if these lands are transferred to
the university. He felt conflicts will grow tremendously when
lands are actually identified for transfer. He stressed SB 16 is
not an appropriate approach to fund any state programs.
Number 479
LAUREN CARLTON, CO-CHAIRPERSON, STUDENT LEGISLATURE, KACHEMAK BAY
BRANCH OF THE KENAI PENINSULA COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA,
testified via teleconference and expressed support for SB 16. She
said there are so many budget problems throughout the university.
At an earlier teleconference on a different subject, the point was
made that there is not much money to go around and only the first
four things will be funded on the Board of Regents priority list.
She felt there is a need for creative ways to come up with money
for the university.
MS. CARLTON disagreed with the previous speaker's argument that the
land will not be used properly. She pointed out that the
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, after much public comment, did not
lease land to a major retailer in Fairbanks due to the critical
waterfowl habitat on the area they were going to lease out. She
felt the university would be a good vehicle for the conveyance of
state lands to an entity that would be responsible in the use of
the land. She said she trusts the university and pointed out that
the university has been known to be very responsible with the land
they have currently.
MS. CARLTON noted a previous speaker mentioned the borough land has
not been fulfilled. She did not feel that is a reason to not allow
the university to have state lands available to them. She did not
think it was necessary for the university to indicate what they
plan to do with the land before they even get it. She felt it was
important for the university to have a public comment period to
discuss how they want to use the land once they acquire it. She
stressed the university is a land grant college and yet has the
least amount of land available compared to most land grant
universities. She noted the state has a lot of land which could be
given to the university.
MS. CARLTON recalled a previous speaker said the state only made $8
million. She felt that was a lot of money when only $10 million is
in the budget for the entire university system. She stated if the
university had more land, it would have more versatility to get
money in the coffer and therefore would not have to be dependent on
the legislature, but rather be financially self-sufficient.
Number 530
DON CORNELIUS, PETERSBURG, testified via teleconference and stated
SB 16 would allow the University of Alaska to select one million
acres of state land for a single use...to generate revenue. He
felt such legislation could have a major impact on Petersburg and
other Southeast communities. He said to put one million acres in
perspective, the draft Tongass Land Management Plan preferred
alternative would have made 1.6 million acres of land available for
timber harvest on the entire forest. Many scientists, as well as
others, said that was too much if other forest values were to be
protected. He noted Admiralty Island is approximately one million
acres in size.
MR. CORNELIUS stated SB 16 is a particular problem for Southeast
because much of the state land in Southeast is around the towns.
This includes most of the shoreline and adjacent uplands on Mitkof
Island. He pointed out one of the quickest ways to make money off
land in Southeast is to log it. He said these same lands have
other values not protected by the proposal. They support deer and
other wildlife used by local hunters and wildlife viewers. They
provide clean water for salmon streams. They provide a scenic
backdrop to communities. He stressed all of these uses would be
adversely affected by SB 16.
MR. CORNELIUS told committee members to witness what happened to
the Whipple Creek area on the Ketchikan road system. He noted over
the protests of local residents, the university logged Slide Ridge
near Whipple Creek. He stated the university representative, who
lives in Anchorage and did not have to live with his actions, said
the people were unreasonable, that they were being selfish. What
resulted is some of the worst logging ever seen. He said it is an
eyesore to local residents, as well as tourists. He pointed out
that area previously supported deer. They will be lost because
second growth does not provide feed for wildlife once the canopy
closes over in 15 to 25 years. It used to stabilize the soils on
Slide Ridge and that soil stability is lost.
MR. CORNELIUS stated the university already owns lands next to and
above Banana Point boat launch ramp on Mitkof Island. It is a
major deer concentration and wintering area and is used extensively
by local hunters. He said when confronted with that concern, a
university land manager stated the hunters were trespassing on
private land. He stressed that is what SB 16 could mean...losing
wildlife, damaging watersheds that provide fish habitat, destroying
the scenic backdrop of Petersburg and other Southeast communities
and losing access to the back yard.
MR. CORNELIUS said unlike residents of Southcentral who live on the
road system, people in Petersburg cannot drive someplace else to do
their recreating as there is a very limited land base. He stated
if that land base is turned over to private enterprise, as the
university is considering, Petersburg's limited opportunities to
enjoy the Alaska way of life will be even further restricted. He
pointed out if SB 16 passes, Southeast residents will have lost
much of their voice concerning what happens on state lands on
Mitkof Island and around other Southeast communities. It will be
in the hands of absentee landlords...university land managers from
Anchorage and Fairbanks who will not have to live with the
consequences of their actions. He noted the university has not in
the past, nor are they required to, listen to the concerns of local
residents.
MR. CORNELIUS urged committee members to reject SB 16 because it is
not for the common well being of the people of Alaska. He said as
an alternative, it is time to realize that the state cannot
continue being a welfare state, handing out almost a thousand
dollars to everyone who lives here for a year. He felt Alaskans
could have a higher standard of living if they used the permanent
fund for the common good...for things like providing a good
university for the state's citizens. He stated it is also time to
accept responsibility for the state's destiny by anteing up for
state taxes. He stressed this is another responsible way to
provide for roads, sewers, and universities without making rural
residents pay an unfair cost...loosing the opportunities to live
the Alaskan lifestyle.
Number 578
BONNIE WILLIAMS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference. She
stated she is a former employee of the university and has no
interest or intention to pursue any interest in any natural
resource or real estate development but is testifying as a member
of the general public. She said as a fly fisherman, she is deeply
concerned about fishing conditions, etc. She expressed strong
support of SB 16 and urged committee members to pass it with the
full one million acres intact.
MS. WILLIAMS said SB 16 would go a long way toward providing the
University of Alaska the original land intended to be granted to
the university by the federal government and never fulfilled by the
state. She stated in the late 1970s, the university received full
control of the management of its lands from the state and after
several years budget details inventory, both documentary and on
site, the university began to earn revenue from its land.
MS. WILLIAMS noted previous speakers have thrown out numbers in
their testimony that do not correlate with the numbers she heard
when she worked at the university. She pointed out the
university's revenue over the past year was up to approximately $7
million and has been rising every year. She stressed $7 million is
not insignificant and is revenue off of approximately 100,000
acres. Adding another 1 million acres would provide for a
projected annual revenue of $70 million. She stated that amount
would significantly help the university and all of its branches,
and help the state with its annual budget problems.
MS. WILLIAMS stated equally important is that each one million
dollars in revenue accruing from natural resource development means
jobs. She guessed that $1 million in revenue profit to the
university translates, at a 7 percent return, $14,285,000 worth of
activity, at least 100 jobs...more likely 300-500 jobs. She said
with real resource development occurrence on long-term leases
(indiscernible), the state would begin to develop (indiscernible).
MS. WILLIAMS said the university has been a good steward of its
land and will continue to be a good steward whether the grant is
100,000 or 1 million plus acres. She stated the university needs
a stable source of revenue and the state needs real, long-term
permanent relief on the demands of its funds. Citizens need a more
diversified economy and jobs paying good wages. She urged
committee members to support SB 16.
TAPE 95-59, SIDE A
Number 000
DAN RITZMAN, BOREAL FOREST COORDINATOR, NORTHERN ALASKA
ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER (NAEC), testified via teleconference and
stated NAEC opposes SB 16. He said SB 16 transfers public lands
out of public ownership, which means Alaskans will lose their voice
on the decisions affecting the management of one million
unspecified acres. He pointed out the university will select the
best and most valuable land, leaving the poorer land to the public.
This type of highgrading, without the opportunity for public
comment, is not responsible land management.
MR. RITZMAN said SB 16 exempts the land transferred from virtually
all of the public participation and resource protection
requirements of the Alaska Lands Act. He stated public lands
traditional uses--fishing, hunting, trapping, and many other
recreational purposes--will be lost or restricted after the land
transfer. (Indiscernible) on transferred lands will conflict with
existing uses of private land and neighboring landowners.
MR. RITZMAN stated the "use it or lose it" clause in SB 16, which
requires the university to generate income from the land in ten
years or forfeiture back to the state, forces the university to
rush into hasty, ill-conceived and especially destructive
development. He said large scale clearcutting for export may be
one of the few ways revenue can be generated within the specified
time frame. He stressed SB 16 is not good for Alaska, it is not
the answer to university funding, and it is not responsible
resource management.
Number 048
COLIN READ, REPRESENTATIVE, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FACULTY, testified
via teleconference and expressed concerns in regard to funding for
the university. He stated a conspiracy of factors will together
apply to next year's funding for the university and will result in
funding upwards of 8 percent lower than this year's funding. He
expressed an interest in an even revenue stream for the university.
MR. READ said higher education is not like some other public agency
in that the university enters into a long-term contract with its
clients. Students are promised the opportunity to complete their
programs within seven years. He stated it is extremely difficult
to engage in long-term contracts with Alaskans seeking a higher
education when the university's budget is from fiscal year to
fiscal year. He stressed there is a need for a mechanism to even
out the flow of resources to the university. He pointed out a
university land grant will allow the university to be less
dependent on general funds.
MR. READ stated the university has been identified as a model for
how to work with various interest groups in the state. He said
such successes are possible perhaps because of the quasi-public
nature of the university. He pointed out it seems sensible for the
state to encourage these successes, as these successes essentially
reduce the need for state support of higher education. He felt it
was ironic for him to be speaking on this issue. He
(indiscernible) in Alaska and Rhode Island and takes pride in his
association with the two states. He noted the irony is that Rhode
Island, the smallest state in the Union, actually has a larger land
grant than Alaska.
Number 100
MARIE BEAVER, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and expressed
opposition to SB 16. She stated SB 16 will eliminate important
public processes and multiple use requirements. She also wondered
if SB 16 is the best way to increase revenue at the university.
She felt SB 16 would promote hasty and thoughtless resource
development. She said important habitat would be destroyed, fish
and wildlife populations would be crippled, and other uses such as
hunting, trapping, recreation, and tourism would be damaged. She
urged committee members to oppose SB 16.
BRIAN ROGERS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated
this is not an illegal fund. He said the state's Constitution
prohibits dedication of funds for those funds which denies
(indiscernible) pre-statehood. He noted the university revenue
funds did pre-date statehood and do not give a constitutional
dedicated fund. He pointed out the university has been sensitive
to public concerns with land management in the past. He explained
there are two opportunities specifically laid out in SB 16 for
comments--first at the time of selection and second, at any time of
development.
MR. ROGERS felt it might be useful if the committee looked at the
1988 process where the university selected land. He noted there
were concerns raised about some of those selections and the
university backed away from some of the selections. He stated
there were also controversial selections but ultimately all of the
controversial selections were settled, including a settlement which
involved a major timber harvest signed off on by several
environmental groups, as well as the various state departments. He
stressed the university has a demonstrated track record and the
allegations of hasty development are not accurate.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted Mr. Rogers had not mentioned whether or not
he was representing an organization.
MR. ROGERS said he was representing himself, although he was a
former vice president for finance of the university at the time the
legislation was written.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated the last time she saw this
legislation, it contained a 250,000 acres land grant. She wondered
why the figure is now 1 million acres.
MR. ROGERS said last year the Senate bill contained 1 million acres
and it was amended on the Senate floor to 500,000. He stated when
the bill was in second reading on the House floor, it was amended
from 500,000 to 250,000 and then sent back to Rules due to lack of
time.
Number 200
SEAN MCGUIRE, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated,
"there could be legislation put forward that could give the
university land near some of these communities where they could
have real estate or other things like that, but to go out and say
we are going to give the university one million acres...every
single fisherman or hunter I have talked to is totally opposed to
this. I think the Republicans are going to alienate large
constituencies. Much of this land is (indiscernible) and private
property signs are going to be sprouting up where people used to
hunt and fish and people understand this. I think there is a real
broad-base of opposition here."
MR. MCGUIRE continued, "I cannot help but almost roll my eyes when
people say the university has a good track record for stewardship.
The worst single clearcut in the entire state was the university
clearcut down in Yakataga. When you are flying in a jumbo jet, it
takes about ten minutes, at 600 miles per hour, to go over that
clearcut. Secondly, the university, here recently, tried to sell
off a treasure that the whole community really is near and dear to
their hearts. They tried to sell that off to Wal-Mart, and to me
that is a very clear example that support to the economics here are
going to dictate that the university is going to be scrambling to
try to get as much money as possible. I think that is going to end
up being the driving force here. I think that if you look around
at the different constituencies, (indiscernible)."
Number 254
NICO BUS, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
(DNR), expressed opposition to SB 16. He said just like the
university, the state of Alaska has a revenue problem. DNR just
completed its negotiations with the mental health trust, which the
department considered a process bill. He noted the department
tried five times to get a reasonable settlement. He felt this is
going to be a very lengthy process that would be better used to
answer the question of how to better utilize the current land base
and maximize the revenue for the state as a whole.
MR. BUS stated, "there are many other individual issues which have
been mentioned with this bill. This attempts to make as many
provisions...give DNR many powers to review the selections. It
does include oil and gas right now. There are a lot of new
initiatives in oil and gas exploration and the department would
like to see the Administration analyze what their priorities are
for these land uses and then revisit this issue later with the
university."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wondered what kind of time frame would be
involved with the review.
MR. BUS stated since the Administration is new, they would like to
look at overall financial long-range planning for the state, take
all the issues in consideration including university funding, and
move ahead. He said committing one million acres to the university
is a little premature for this Administration.
Number 293
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted the process of identifying land and
going through the public process in selecting the land will take a
long time. He said the department still retains a great deal of
discretion in SB 16 as to which lands to approve. He suggested
there is plenty of time for that review.
MR. BUS said his understanding is the university is looking at this
from a long-term financial planning standpoint as well. He stated
what the department does not want to get involved with currently is
diverting attention to negotiating with the university, looking at
their selections, etc. The department wants to focus on how it can
generate and maximize revenue for the state of Alaska and serve the
public process.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered what the university does better than
the state. He asked why the state does not just develop state
land, make money off of it, fund the general fund and then fund the
university.
MR. BUS replied when the land is transferred to the university, it
becomes private land and the university does not have the same
requirements the state has such as sustained yield and buffer
zones. He stated the university can maximize the dollar to a
larger extent than the state. He said that is an area the
department is currently looking at...what are the current statutes
the department has to deal with and working with the legislature,
how can the department make some changes enabling the state to make
more money.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered if the department would support a
smaller land grant to the university such as 200,000 acres.
MR. BUS stated the department, at the present time, would not
support any land grant to the university.
Number 348
SARA HANNAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY, stated
the university land grant is not a new discussion before the
legislature. Since statehood, the university has sought additional
lands to its federal land grant. She encouraged the committee to
separate the two issues. She said endowing the university and
discussing aggressive management of one million acres of state land
are different and separate discussions.
MS. HANNAN said the federal land endowment was fulfilled,
unfulfilled, litigated for ten years, and settled in 1988. The
specific settlement was five years in negotiation with every single
parcel of land delineated in the settlement. She stated the
university worked hard for that and they have done a good job of
aggressively managing their land for the purpose of economic return
to the university. She noted many people in the environmental
community have been concerned about some of the university's
developments but for the purposes in which they received the land,
they have met their goal.
MS. HANNAN asked the question, does the state owe the university
another 750,000 acres above and beyond the original federal
entitlement. The university says it does. She stated if the state
pie is looked at, the state is taking its own resources, which may
give the state some money, and giving it to the university. She
said if the state gets a land entitlement to fulfill that federal
land grant from federal lands, then the pie is being added to and
every Alaskan benefits.
MS. HANNAN asked the question, is it a good land management policy
to fragment the land ownership even further. She thought it was a
serious question to decide. She wondered if the state wants to
encourage the university, because it is a private land entity
separate from the state, to do value-added processing of timber.
She noted that could be required but that is a policy discretion
which needs to be put in statute before the land goes to the
university. Once the university has the land, it is theirs. It is
private land for the purposes of legal development and the state no
longer has a say directly in what the university does and how they
do it.
MS. HANNAN said if the state decides it wants to aggressively seek
mining and wants the university to be an aggressive manager of
mines, the state should design that as a policy question going into
the granting of land to the university. She stressed the state is
going to give the university one million acres of land without
delineating it and without negotiating it. She stated other
legislatures have discussed different kinds of land disposals and
every one of them has gone through lengthy hearings where the final
acreage is delineated before it is given away. She added every
municipality does that, every preserve of land does that, and every
time the state disposes of land it specifies that.
MS. HANNAN wondered if the state has a higher obligation to endow
the university than secondary schools. In 1988, Governor Cowper
agreed to endow the university and finalize the state entitlement
but he also said the state should endow a secondary and primary
school. She said that was never done. She pointed out the state
has gone further down the economic slide. The state has less money
and is looking for more ways to enhance the management and income
of its lands. She did not feel the legislature was answering the
questions regarding policy about land management before giving land
to the university.
MS. HANNAN felt SB 16 was being rushed through the session and
needs a lot of work to be done on it. She urged the committee to
keep SB 16 in committee.
Number 420
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked if she were to agree with Ms. Hannan,
would she go from zero on the AEL's scorecard up to about ten.
WENDY REDMAN, UNIVERSITY RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, stated
there were several issues raised which she would like to address.
She said there are many rumors going around about the university
selecting particular pieces of land. She stressed the university
does not know what land they will be selecting. She explained the
university wrote a special section in SB 16 which protects the
customary and traditional use of the land and a section which
provides tort protection for the university, letting the university
allow people to come on undeveloped land.
MS. REDMAN said the university has tried very hard in the last two
years to address all of the concerns expressed by various groups in
regard to SB 16. She stated people are concerned about 20 million
acres in the state which they are certain the university is going
to select. The university has tried to meet the concerns the
environmental community has brought forward with a much tightened
and different type of public process in terms of putting out the
public land grant plan, going to the communities where the
development is planned. She noted there are many examples where
the university has gone into those communities with its land use
plans, listened to the community and shaped the plan in response to
that input. She added in some cases the plan has been called off
in response to community input.
MS. REDMAN stated she is tired of hearing the one issue which
people bring up when they want to talk about bad land management by
the university, which is Whipple Creek. She said it is the only
issue she hears people bring up. She explained Whipple Creek is
one of the clearcuts the university did. She agreed clearcuts are
not beautiful to look at but she challenged anyone who suggests the
university has not been an outstanding steward of its lands for the
last decade.
MS. REDMAN agreed this is a policy call which the legislature needs
to make. She said the policy is simple--if they believe that
having slightly less than 2 percent of the land of this state in
private hands for development is too much, then they should vote
against SB 16. If they think more land should be in private hands
for development, generating new revenue for the state, then SB 16
should be supported. She stated the university has a record that
is superior in being able to get land into development and generate
new revenue for the state which otherwise would not be generated.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated the issue of whether or not more land
should be in private ownership is not necessarily a reason to
support SB 16. She believes in having more land in private
ownership but would like to see that land in the hands of
individual Alaskans, so the individual Alaskans can help develop
the state as well. She wondered where in the bill it mentions that
traditional uses will continue.
MS. REDMAN replied that language is on page 10, line 28.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated it troubles her to hear people refer
to the land grant of other states versus the amount of land the
state has granted. She agreed that Alaska is the largest state in
the nation and has less than 2 percent of its land in private
ownership but on the other hand, the state does not have much
developable land in the state. She pointed out if the university
selects all of the developable land which the state can derive
revenues from, where does that leave the state. That is why she
asked the question about a smaller amount of land to be granted.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES noted that most other states do not have to
deal with the same environmental constraints that Alaska does, such
as the adverse conditions and where development might take place as
it relates to Alaska versus the Lower 48. She felt all of those
things need to be balanced.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS agreed with Representative Barnes to a certain
extent that there is a need to get land into private ownership. He
felt one million acres is not even enough.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES agreed that the university has been an
exemplary developer of land in the sense that they brought
communities to the table before developing land. He noted there is
one other advantage the university has over the state which has not
been mentioned. The university, being a quasi-public institution,
is not subject to the interstate commerce restrictions the state of
Alaska is. Therefore, the university can require in a contract, if
they desire, to require local value-added processing. He felt SB
16 can be looked at as increasing the development pie in the state
rather than slicing the pie thinner.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated the committee cannot meet again until 5:00
p.m. April 28. He recessed the meeting until that time.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|