Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/03/1996 08:07 AM 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 3, 1996
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Don Long
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ramona Barnes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38
Opposing the proposed expansion of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency's toxics release inventory program.
- PASSED SJR 38 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL 313
"An Act relating to fees for big game tags for wolves; and
providing for an effective date."
- PASSED CSHB 313(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 250(FIN) am
"An Act relating to the University of Alaska and to assets of the
University of Alaska; authorizing the University of Alaska to
select additional state public domain land, designating that land
as `university trust land,' and describing the principles
applicable to the land's management and the development of its
resources; and defining the net income from the University of
Alaska's endowment trust fund as `university receipts' subject to
prior legislative appropriation."
- PASSED HCSCSSB 250(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 548
"An Act authorizing, approving, and ratifying the amendment of
Northstar Unit oil and gas leases between the State of Alaska and
BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 38
SHORT TITLE: TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/08/96 2658 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/08/96 2658 (S) RESOURCES
03/12/96 2705 (S) RES RPT 5DP
03/12/96 2705 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S. RES)
03/13/96 (S) RLS AT 11:00 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/13/96 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/25/96 2865 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/25/96
03/25/96 2883 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/25/96 2884 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
03/25/96 2884 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 38
03/25/96 2884 (S) PASSED Y19 N1
03/25/96 2886 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/26/96 3360 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/26/96 3361 (H) RESOURCES
04/03/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 313
SHORT TITLE: BIG GAME TAGS FOR WOLVES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) OGAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/20/95 1399 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/20/95 1399 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/07/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/09/96 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/03/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 250
SHORT TITLE: UNIV. OF ALASKA: LAND GRANT & ASSETS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) FRANK, Rieger, Kelly, Miller, Sharp
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/02/96 2279 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/02/96 2279 (S) FINANCE
02/15/96 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/15/96 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
02/15/96 2444 (S) FIN RPT CS 2DP 4NR SAME TITLE
02/15/96 2445 (S) FISCAL NOTES TO CS (DNR, UA, REV, F&G)
02/19/96 (S) RLS AT 11:35 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/19/96 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/06/96 2625 (S) RULES RPT 2CAL 1NR 3/6/96
03/06/96 2626 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/06/96 2627 (S) RETURN TO RLS COMMITTEE
03/20/96 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/20/96 2807 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2CAL 1NR 1OTHER 3/20
03/20/96 2811 (S) IN SECOND READING
03/20/96 2811 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/20/96 2811 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/20/96 2812 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y12 N8
03/20/96 2813 (S) THIRD READING 3/22 CALENDAR
03/22/96 2841 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 250(FIN) AM
03/22/96 2842 (S) MOTION TO RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 2
03/22/96 2842 (S) HELD TO 3/25 CALENDAR W/MOTION PENDING
03/25/96 2869 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 2 UNAN CONSENT
03/25/96 2870 (S) AM NO 2 OFFERED BY TAYLOR
03/25/96 2870 (S) AM TO AM 2 OFFERED BY TORGERSON
03/25/96 2870 (S) AM TO AM 2 FAILED Y10 N10
03/25/96 2871 (S) AM NO 2 ADOPTED Y11 N9
03/25/96 2871 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
03/25/96 2871 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 3 UNAN CONSENT
03/25/96 2871 (S) AM NO 3 OFFERED BY TAYLOR
03/25/96 2872 (S) AM NO 3 FAILED Y9 N11
03/25/96 2872 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
03/25/96 2872 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 4 Y15 N5
03/25/96 2873 (S) AM NO 4 OFFERED BY TAYLOR
03/25/96 2873 (S) AM NO 4 FAILED Y8 N12
03/25/96 2874 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
03/25/96 2874 (S) PASSED Y11 N9
03/25/96 2875 (S) Duncan NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
03/26/96 2911 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
03/26/96 2912 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/27/96 3387 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/27/96 3387 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
04/03/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Staff
to Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 115
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2095
POSITION STATEMENT: Available for questions on SJR 38.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Fish and Game
P. O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Department supports HB 313.
ANTHONY CRUPI, Volunteer
Alaska Environmental Lobby
419 6th Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 313.
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Staff
to Representative Joe Green
House of Representatives
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol, Room 24
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6547
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained changes in proposed CSSB 250.
JOHN T. SHIVELY, Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby
Juneau, AK 99801-1724
Telephone: (907) 465-2400
POSITION STATEMENT: The department has concerns with CSSB 250.
JEFF JERSEE, Attorney
Mental Health Lands Trust Settlement
3601 C Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: (907) 269-7960
POSITION STATEMENT: Available for questions on CS SB 250.
R. B. STILES, President
Alaska Coal Association
711 H Street, Suite 600
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-6868
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed his lack of support for SB 250.
MARTIN EPSTEIN, Director
Lands Management Office
University of Alaska
3890 University Lake Drive
Anchorage, AK 99508
Telephone: (907) 786-7766
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 250.
JEFF PARKER, Vice President
Trout Unlimited
1201 Hyder
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-5418
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 250.
JONI GATES
P. O. Box 11
Tenakee Springs, AK 99841
Telephone: Unavailable
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 250.
VERN CARLSON
201 Old Steese Highway
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-1385
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 250.
ART BUSWELL
102 Maple Drive
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-0637
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 250.
BILL ROBERTSON, President
Chief Executive Officer
Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce
546 9th Street
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-1105
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 250.
GREG PROBST, Graduate Student
University of Alaska-Fairbanks Conservancy
1745 Reed Circle, Apartment 2
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Telephone: 479-7947
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 250.
STUART PECHEK, Commercial Fisherman
3927 Venture
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-6987
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that SB 250 is not the total answer.
MARI-EMILLE SWEIGART, UAF Student
University of Alaska-Fairbanks Conservancy
P. O. Box 750194
Fairbanks, AK 99775
Telephone: (907) 457-8168
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 250.
GARY PAUL, Natural Resources Major
University of Alaska-Fairbanks
P. O. Box 84336
Fairbanks, AK 99708
Telephone: (907) 455-4148
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 250.
TARA BRADLEY, Student
University of Alaska-Anchorage
Address Unavailable
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: Unavailable
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 250.
SOREN WUERTH, Student
University of Alaska-Anchorage
P. O. Box 2454
Cordova, AK 99574
Telephone: Unavailable
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 250.
SUSAN GARDINER DILLON, Student
University of Alaska-Anchorage
1437 I Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: Unavailable
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 250.
KEVIN TRITT, Student
University of Alaska-Anchorage
P. O. Box 2785
Cordova, AK 99574-2785
Telephone: Unavailable
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 250
SARA HANNAN, Executive Director
Alaska Environmental Lobby
419 6th Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 250.
JERRY McCUTCHEON
P. O. Box 241623
Anchorage, AK 99524
Telephone: (907) 277-3076
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes clear cutting at Cape Yakataga.
DAN RITZMAN
Northern Alaska Environmental Lobby
218 Driveway Street
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-5021
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 250.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-48, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Resources Committee meeting
to order at 8:07 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Williams, Ogan, Kott, and Long.
Representatives Austerman, Davies and Nicholia were late.
Representative Barnes was absent.
SJR 38 - TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY PROGRAM
Number 095
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Loren Leman,
appeared on behalf of the Senate Resources Committee. She stated
that SJR 33 was an expansion of the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
program, and the Senate Resources Committee is concerned about the
expansion of federal intrusion, or expansion of programs relating
to reporting.
MS. KREITZER informed that the Senate has introduced legislation
dealing with excessive reporting requirements: SB 69 and SB 199.
The Senate Resources Committee would appreciate favorable
consideration of SJR 38.
Number 319
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed that the resolution appears to be a
continuation of, what might be considered a proliferation of,
unnecessary, or overindulgence in regulations. He stated his
concurrence with the senate resolution.
Number 350
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked Ms. Kreitzer to explain page 2,
line 4, "Whereas the only way to monitor these varying discharges
would be for operators to perform regular, expensive waste stream
tests; and." What was the standard prior to the TRI program and
what increased testing is now required?
Number 402
MS. KREITZER commented that, "Currently, oil and gas exploration
production companies are not covered under the "Toxic Release
Inventory" program. It is a program that covers chemical companies
and the entire process of reporting under a TRI, it is not a
situation where it is less reporting that is required now and this
would be mean an increase in an existing program. They are
expanding the program, not only the number of chemicals to be
reported, but also expanding the program to new industries, and
that is the problem. It is an expansion of a program - we feel
like the reporting requirements can be met under the Clean Water
Act and Clean Air Act and other existing acts. The committee felt
that this was just excessive, duplicative reporting."
Number 474
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAM K. "BILL" WILLIAMS moved that SJR 38 move from
the House Resources Committee with individual recommendations.
There were no objections, so SJR 38 moved from committee.
HB 313 - BIG GAME TAGS FOR WOLVES
Number 511
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "HB 313 is straight forward and the least
controversial methodology that the state might be able to impose
for managing predators. It simply reduces the tag fees for out of
state residents from $175.00 to $30.00 and for non-resident aliens
from $250.00 to $50.00."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "Currently, there is literally a handful
of permits that are issued to nonresidents every year. The chances
of a person running across a wolf during regular hunting seasons in
the fall are fairly slim. The takes are pretty much incidental.
We believe that by lowering these fees there will be more people
with wolf tags in the field. The Department of Fish and Game,
through its recommendations to the game board, could set seasons
and bag limits to effectively manage these areas."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN submitted that, "If a system like this is in
place that, quite possibly, in some of the areas we are right now,
hunting is restricted for all nonresidents for moose or caribou.
And, we have a real bad problem with lack of predator control and
too many predators in certain areas that possibly this might have
been a tool that could have been used to keep these areas from
getting to that point."
Number 668
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "Originally we had lowering the price to
$10.00 and we felt that the department had a little bit of a
problem with it because they felt it would be a negative fiscal
note, or have a negative affect on their revenues and be a fiscal
note of about $50,000. I believe by raising these tags, I would
not be surprised, at all, if this brings in more money to the
department. I believe that guides will advise their hunters that
while you are at it, pick up a wolf tag they are only 30 bucks or
50 dollars."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "In certain areas where we don't want
wolves taken, the game board can still have the ability, and the
tools, to restrict harvest and season in those areas. So, this is
not going to be detrimental to the wolf populations in areas that
we don't want wolves taken out."
Number 748
REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG clarified that the committee substitute was
lowering tag fees for wolves from $175.00 to $30.00 and $250.00 to
$50.00.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN answered that Representative Long was correct,
the bill lowers wolf tag fees for nonresident or a nonresident
alien hunters. "We hope that more of them will pick up tags and,
the incidental take of wolves while they are in the field hunting
generally other species, will increase, allowing the game board to
set the harvest and bag limits. Essentially, it is an accepted
practice to bear chase, hunt wolves, that is the biggest outcry of
the animal rights activists groups is that some of the methodology
that's been proposed is not bear chase. This certainly is bear
chase, and, I believe, gives the game board more latitude to manage
predators."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted earlier arrival of Representatives Davies
and Austerman.
Number 833
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wanted to know the plan, the nonresident alien is
not required to have a nonresident tag if he is hunting in an area
of intensive game management. Will that be by guide only so that
the state knows that he is complying with other areas?
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded that, "Species, except moose and
caribou nonresidents are required to have guides. Chances are
nonresidents, especially, and nonresidents do hunt with guides
primarily. It is rare when they do not. Realistically, most areas
where there is intensive management now, and nonresidents cannot
hunt for moose and caribou in those areas because there are not
enough to go around, nonresidents are the first ones that are not
able to hunt."
Number 916
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Department of Fish and Game,
joined the panel and responded to Chairman Green that a nonresident
hunting big game would be required to have a guide. The guide
would be familiar with the areas which the Board of Game has
identified as an area for intensive management. Those are areas
where there is a higher population of wolves, or other predators,
that would be wise to reduce, so it could have the affect that
Representative Ogan is intending.
MR. BRUCE replied that HB 313 is not a big cost savings, but it is
a message that the state is sending encouraging people, if they are
so inclined, to go ahead and take a wolf while they are hunting for
other species. He stated that the intensive game management areas,
that authority was given to the Board of Game by prior legislation
and another bill was recently passed which expands on that initial
authority.
Number 1095
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN raised the point that other legislation is fining
the citizens of the state for taking game out of season while this
bill appears to be giving a break to nonresident hunters to come in
and hunt wolves.
MR. BRUCE informed Chairman Green that residents are not required
to have a tag to take wolves so there is no cost for residents.
Number 1120
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN answered that the other legislation referred to
by Chairman Green affected nonresidents as well as residents.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wanted to know the effectiveness of incidental
kill.
Number 1193
MR. BRUCE responded that, historically, there has not been a high
interest by nonresidents coming to the state specifically to hunt
wolves. The number of wolves taken by nonresidents has been fairly
small and fairly stable. "I think it is an incidental take
question and I think the intention, though, is that there are
limited tools available that have general acceptance to try to
increase the harvest of wolves in areas where there are surpluses
and this is intended to provide a tool that would do that. How
effective that will be, we will have to give it some time to see.
Number 1247
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN assumed from Mr. Bruce's testimony that the
department is in favor of both the reduction and the nonrequirement
for intensive game management areas.
Number 1261
MR. BRUCE replied that the department has worked with the sponsor
and we are comfortable with the bill.
Number 1270
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES wondered how much the wolf tag is and,
specifically, why the language only says eliminate and does not
give the possibility of reducing the wolf tag.
MR. BRUCE replied that $175.00 for nonresidents and $250.00 for
nonresident aliens is the current requirement. He explained, "So,
it is being reduced in areas which have not been identified for
intensive management and waived in areas where intensive management
has been implemented. So, there are two levels of incentive under
the bill."
Number 1307
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to Game Management Area 13 stating the
state has waived tag fees on grizzly bears for resident hunters in
that area.
Number 1359
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES understood that the bill would eliminate or
reduce the tag fee stating his concern was getting rid of the tag,
itself. Does the tag help track the take, or are their other uses
that the department uses, in terms of management of the tag, apart
from the fee?
Number 1379
MR. BRUCE answered that there are other means for gathering that
information. If you are hunting with a guide, guides are required
to provide harvest information to the department. We do not think
that we would lose through this measure our ability to collect the
information and track the harvest.
Number 1403
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered if legislation encouraging nonresidents
and nonresident aliens to come to Alaska and kill wolves could be
used against the state and generate bad publicity.
Number 1430
MR. BRUCE explained that the bill, essentially, liberalizes hunting
regulations, it is still within the normal domain of hunting under
the fair chase principle. It is consistent, in that respect, with
all the other general philosophy for managing the hunting activity.
It is not predator control in that sense, it is just simply a more
liberalized approach to hunting of this particular species.
Number 1479
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN suggested that the bill is wildlife management,
as wildlife management is intended to be.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN subscribed to intensive game management where it
is necessary to preserve the game.
Number 1499
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN commented that he sees nothing wrong
with the bill and understands the intent. He said that Kodiak
Island, also, had lean years and years of abundance, and that is a
management tool that the department can use whether the tag fee is
lowered or whether it is the bag limit, it is all part of how game
management is controlled.
Number 1557
ANTHONY CRUPI, Volunteer, Alaska Environmental Lobby, related that
today's testimony had raised points that address why the lobby does
not support HB 313:
"Number one, I believe there would definitely be a negative impact
on the tourist industry by something like this. More importantly,
it appears inconceivable how, at a present period where we have
such cuts in our budget for the Department of Fish and Game that we
would pass legislation that would reduce the revenues to increase
predator control. That just does not seem to be consistent with
what our feelings should be.
MR. CRUPI, "I, also, believe that the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, as well as the Board of Game, the supposed managers of our
wildlife, should be managing our wildlife. They should retain that
authority to regulate our game and our predators. I do not feel
that it is consistent with our legislature imposing acts to take
that authority from underneath them.
MR. CRUPI continued, "The influence of this bill reducing the
variable by over 80 percent to increase the nonresident and
nonresident aliens takings, does not do anything but decrease the
latitude of the Board of Game and the Department of Fish and Game
to manage the predators.
Number 1642
MR. CRUPI stated, "I feel that by not requiring this wolf tag that
intensive game management, when it is under progress, it does not
lead to more biologically sound understanding of the wolf
population or the game population. I feel that we are losing
information by not requiring this tag.
MR. CRUPI concluded, "In addition to decreased regulation, HB 313,
as we have said, is very inconsistent with proposed bill, HB 329
which as you know, puts the penalty value for a wolf at $500.00
whereas this puts the value of the wolf at $30.00. I do not
believe that even at $500.00, it adequately represents the wealth,
the worth and the benefit of a live, running, healthy wolf."
Number 1680
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Crupi if his last statement
meant that the state should not kill wolves, altogether.
MR. CRUPI related that his point was that the $500 value is very
inconsistent with the $30.00 and $50.00 price put on the wolf in HB
313. His personal opinion is a wolf, as a predator, should be
valued even higher than $500.00, and he is very opposed to a $30.00
or $50.00 wolf.
Number 1723
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN expressed an opinion that the wolf having a
negative impact on the tourist industry is a smoke screen. He
referred to the budget cuts saying, "Right now, 10,000 nonresident
and nonresident aliens hunt in this state every year, 245 currently
buy wolf tags, and we believe that if half of those people picked
up tags, it could generate $200,000 for the state. Currently, the
tag sales generate about $50,000."
Number 1796
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "For your information, we delegate, we
the legislature, delegates the authority to the Department of Fish
and Game and the Board of Game to manage wildlife. We would not be
undermining their authority because we give it to them. So,
ultimately, it is the legislature's authority to manage this
wildlife and we have chosen to delegate it to those people. So, we
are not taking any authority away because we give the authority.
You need to understand that."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked the wish of the committee.
Number 1811
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN moved that CSHB 313 (RES) move from the
House Resources Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
SB 250 - UNIV. OF ALASKA: LAND GRANT & ASSETS
Number 1842
SENATOR STEVE FRANK stated that CS SB 250 (FIN) is this year's
version of the university land grant bill. "This committee did
pass out, last year, Senate Bill 16, which was the university land
grant bill, which as you know, the Governor vetoed. We made some
changes to it to address some of the concerns that were expressed
in the Governor's veto message. Probably, the most significant
change is the change that puts the Department of Natural Resources
in, near total, control of the land selection process. It
eliminates any potential for over filings or conflicts with
existing or potential uses. By putting the power in the Department
of Natural Resources, we should be able to eliminate any of those
problems."
Number 1888
SENATOR FRANK further stated, "With amendments that we do have
today and would like to see adopted, we would require that the
legislature approve any of the specific land designations to the
university through legislation action. That will provide kind of
a `belt and suspenders' approach to the process so that any
legislator knows that he, or she, would have another opportunity to
comment on lands transferred to the university. That is a major
concession, from my perspective, and the university's perspective,
because it does require, positive legislative action. And, as you
all know, it is not easy to get a bill passed. Particularly, one
that may be opposed by certain elements of the legislature."
Number 1930
SENATOR FRANK continued, SB 250, "really provides a great deal of
assurance to individual legislators, interest groups and the public
in general. The public will have ample opportunity to comment on
lands that would be transferred. As a practical matter, the
Department of Natural Resources, they have a good handle on the
land status throughout the state ... on areas that are appropriate
for development through the university, or selection by the
university ... areas they know are sensitive for whatever reason."
SENATOR FRANK proceeded, "I really don't think the Administration
would propose lands that would be controversial. The Governor has
the final say in what lands would be submitted to the legislature
for approval. I don't think the Governor would submit lands that
were controversial. Certainly, even if he, or she, did, the
legislature would have final say. Also, the legislature could
remove a specific parcel that was of concern, if you adopt the
amendments that we are hoping you will, this morning."
Number 1986
SENATOR FRANK informed, "We, also, have amendments to alleviate, or
allay, concerns that have been expressed by the mineral industry.
The mineral industry has concerns about the bill ... we have tried
to deal with those very straightforwardly. I think their concern
is with regard to the rents and royalty schedules. We are asking
that the legislation contain `express language' that the rent and
royalty schedules would be exactly the same as the state's. So,
there is no reason for the mineral industry to feel like they have
something to be threatened by, in that regard. Their other
concerns relate to over filing, which we have eliminated through
the other mechanism that I spoke of a few minutes ago, and that
sort of thing. So, I feel like we have gone the extra mile to
alleviate concerns addressed by interested parties, whether they be
development oriented interests, such as the mining industry, or
environmental concerns expressed. "
Number 2020
SENATOR FRANK explained, "The public will be very involved in
making decisions ... there is lot of opportunities for input along
the way, and, you really wind up with the legislature having the
final say."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN advised that committee staff would explain the
proposed amendments.
Number 2071
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Staff to Representative Green, directed
members to CSSB 250 (FIN) "M" entitled AMENDMENT explaining that
the amendment was drafted with the concurrence of the chairman, the
committee, the sponsor and the university:
Page 7, line 22, After " ... whichever is less."
Delete all material through line 26 and insert "the legislature
must approve or disapprove a list of land to be conveyed by the end
of the first regular session following the submission of the list.
The legislature may approve some, or all, of the land proposed for
conveyance."
Page 8, line 30, following "conveyance"
Delete "."
Insert "and subject to the terms and conditions of conveyance and
the provisions in AS 14.40.365 - AS 14.40.400
Page 10, line 22, following "principles"
Delete "."
Insert "subject to terms of conveyance and the provisions in AS
14.4.365 - AS 14.40.400.
Page 10, line 30, following "leasing"
Insert "and rent and royalty schedules"
Page 10, line 16
Insert new subsection (k):
(k) Nothing herein shall operate contrary to the purposes to
the Memorandum of Agreement entered into on December 2, 1994
between the University, the state and various other parties in
settlement of litigation in Consolidated Case No. 1JU-88-271
Civil."
Page 11, line 17, following "land"
Delete "."
Insert "conveyed under AS 14.40.365
Page 11, line 21, following "land"
Delete "."
Insert "conveyed under AS 14.40.365
Number 2160
MR. LOGAN stated that the final amendment was on page 7, line 14:
After " ... 29.65.140..." Insert, "or valid existing selections of
the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority under AS 38.-05. The list
shall not include lands whose management by the university would be
inconsistent with the terms of the Alaska Mental Health Lands Trust
Settlement."
MR. LOGAN proceeded to explain the final amendment stating that
this amendment, essentially, holds harmless the Alaska Mental
Health Lands Trust Settlement which says that lands cannot be
selected that would adversely impact that settlement.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN emphasized his understanding that the final
amendment had, also, been agreed to.
Number 2204
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN synthesized the amendments ... "So, the bottom
line is that we will have another shot at it, as the lists, or the
groups of land, that are brought before us, come to us ... we will
have another chance to approve those. And, that would be done
during the legislative session in which the land is selected, and
it can impact, adversely, the prior settlement on the Mental Health
Lands.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked for the appropriate copy of the
committee substitute for SB 250 (FIN) (K).
MR. LOGAN commented that each member should have version CSSB 250
(FIN) (K) AM.
Number 2341
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved that the committee adopt the suite of
proposed amendments before them.
Number 2348
SENATOR FRANK said he would explain the elements in the other
amendments: "The rents and royalties issue is the subject of the
amendments on page 8, line 30, page 10, line 22 and page 10, line
30 ... where the mining industry is concerned that they have the
same terms and conditions as existing state programs for rents and
royalties, and to spell that out very plainly. We felt it was
already clear in the law, but this spells it out even more clear."
Number 2375
SENATOR FRANK said, "Page 10, line 16, the university suggested
this language here ... they have a settlement with the Southeast
Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC) on the Yakataga issue, and
SEACC was concerned that this bill not change anything in their
settlement. So, the university agreed to put language in, to make
sure that that is clear, and changes nothing relative to that
settlement." Amendments on page 11, line 17, and on page 11, line
21, are merely conforming amendments to be consistent with the
others."
Number 2433
JOHN T. SHIVELY, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources,
commended the university but, particularly, Senator Frank and
Representative Davies who have made extensive efforts to work with
the Department of Natural Resources, which are recognized in the
amendments before the committee. "I have to say that the bill you
are looking at this year is vastly improved over the bill that you
saw last year. We still have some of the basic concerns that we
expressed last year" ..... (CHANGE TAPE)
TAPE 96-48, SIDE B
Number 000
COMMISSIONER SHIVELY ...."in fact, on the university, in the near
future, we don't think those lands are readily available. In
addition, there are conflicts with other selections, but the
sponsor and the university have `bent over backwards' to avoid
those conflicts, and given the kind of responsibilities given to
me, and my successors, as this proceeds, my assumption is those
conflicts will be worked out, in terms of things, like municipal
selections. That concern has pretty much been taken care of."
Number 025
COMMISSIONER SHIVELY jokingly recalled that Senator Frank assumed
that the Governor and the commissioner would not present, to the
legislature, any land that was controversial. I have yet to find
any land in my domain that is not controversial. Maybe, at some
point after the legislature, the Senator and I can look over the
maps and determine where this land is that is without controversy.
Number 042
COMMISSIONER SHIVELY said, "I am not sure, ultimately, what we are
going to do with the bill. We did veto it last year, the Governor
has not made that decision. I have one other, institutional,
concern, particularly, that I think is addressed conceptually in
this bill, but not addressed specifically, and that is, I do not
believe that oil and gas rights should go to the university. I
think they are too important and should remain with the state. The
university, I think, response to that has been, generally, ...
well, since the commissioner has the right to decide what goes,
then the commissioner can do that. I think that is something that
you might want to consider."
Number 074
COMMISSIONER SHIVELY voiced that, "Senator Frank has moved to
accommodate some of those concerns, the fact that there has been
opposition to this bill from ... sort of, both ends of the
political spectrum. The environmentalists, on one hand, who
basically support keeping land in public, state ownership, and some
of the people in the development community who are concerned about,
I think, a variety of different approaches on public lands."
Number 100
COMMISSIONER SHIVELY remained available for questions. He, again,
thanked Senator Frank, Representative Davies and the university for
working with the department to make this a better bill.
Number 112
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled Commissioner Shively's statement about
the oil and gas and mineral rights, and asked, "In any conveyance
that the state has made ... not necessarily dealing now with that
which we are getting from the federal government, but once the
state has gotten title to the land, do you know of any place where
we have conveyed subsurface mineral rights?
COMMISSIONER SHIVELY replied that, generally, by the constitution,
we are restrained from doing that. "However, because the university
is an instrument of the state, they, theoretically, could get
those. For instance, on municipal land, to my knowledge, oil and
gas rights do not go."
Number 138
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Commissioner Shively whether he had
specific objections to the amendments before the committee.
Number 152
COMMISSIONER SHIVELY commented that he had not heard explanation of
all amendments but, of the ones he heard, he had no objection. He
said the Mental Health Lands amendment is a good one, but the
amendment relating to rents and royalties on a mineral property is
more of an issue for the mineral community than it is for the
commissioner.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAM K. "BILL" WILLIAMS mentioned that this might be
a good time to act on the amendments.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN reminded the committee that there is a motion on
the table to adopt the amendments, as presented.
Number 182
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT wanted clarification from the sponsor
about the amendment that addresses legislative oversight. "In your
opening remarks, Senator Frank, you mentioned how hard it was to
pass a bill through the legislature, but if I understand this
amendment, correctly, it's going to require a legislature to pass,
either in support of, or rejecting the notion of it. It seems to
be of a little different wrinkle than the way we have addressed
other types of land conveyances."
Number 209
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN premised the reason is to have a "second bite of
the apple." "If the selection is in a position to create an
adversity, for example, the Mental Health Lands, or to, perhaps,
inadvertent over filing. It just gives the legislature another shot
at approving the amount of land ... let's say they came in with
125,000 acres and 3,000 of that was in a problem area. The
legislature could approve 122,000 and then the 3,000 (acres) would
still be in contention. They would not be approved for selection.
It does sound like micromanagement. I think the intent was, as a
compromise, so that we would not reopen, under any possibility,
reopen that Mental Health Trust Settlement that was made by
possibly, inadvertently, though it may be reducing the land value,
of that which was exchanged."
Number 252
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT saw the chairman's point but theorized that if
the university submits a parcel of land ...50,000 acres, one piece.
And, there is a bill introduced that would require us to take some
form of action, and this committee is the first committee of
referral, and we find out there is a problem with this, and none of
us support it. What this amendment would require is that this bill
float through the entire process so that we, outwardly, reject it.
I would suggest that `no action' by the legislature should come out
a disapproval versus taking a proactive approach.
Number 281
SENATOR FRANK remarked that Representative Kott paid attention to
detail. "I think that the way we structured this amendment is
probably, not exactly, correct, in that it implies that the
legislature would have to take action to `disapprove.' In an
earlier draft, in fact, the draft you have, version M, envisions
inaction as being approval. He explained, "Last night, we made the
change, which was a further concession on my part and the
university's part to go to requiring approval. In drafting that,
I thought about taking the words `or disapprove' out, because I
know it has no effect. Inaction will be disapproval! I know as a
matter of fact, that if a committee does an act on a bill and no
approval or disapproval occurs, no conveyance of the land will
occur." He assented to taking out the words `or disapprove' hoping
that any future legislature would act, not just stall."
Number 350
SENATOR FRANK continued, "It was an expression that the university
would get a larger land grant, leaving it up to the Administration
to work that out. They would have the authority to work that out.
We've backpeddled to the point where the legislature has to be
reinvolved in the process to approve those selections. I would
hope that the legislature wouldn't just refuse to either deal with
it, one way or the other."
Number 387
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT exclaimed that is just his point, "If we don't,
we are in violation of the statute, if I read this correctly.
Number 400
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed saying, "And, some cantankerous committee
chair could hold it is his committee and we would be in violation,
because we would not have disapproved either. He interpreted
Representative Kott's concern to mean that the legislature would be
forced to take action or be in violation of our own statute. Even
if it is to disapprove, we would have to take the action."
Number 416
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN offered an amendment to the amendment to delete
the words, "or disapprove."
Number 440
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN shared Representative Kott's concern saying, "If
we somehow don't take action, would that create, maybe, a necessity
to come back into session?"
Number 455
SENATOR FRANK had no problem with the amendment. "I think it is
practical. I don't think the legislature would feel, itself,
terribly compelled to follow that, if it did not want to."
Number 466
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN called for the question on the amendment to the
amendment.
Number 474
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "We can't bind future legislatures, the
legislature has the prerogative to act or not act. The practical
impact of this is relatively minor."
C0-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was objection to the amendment to
the amendment. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 499
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there is motion to accept the package of
amendments, as amended. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that a plethora of people were waiting
to testify of SB 250. He asked the witnesses to hold their
testimony to two minutes each.
Number 532
JEFF JERSEE, Attorney, Alaska Mental Health Land Trust Settlement,
expressed appreciation of Chairman Green's consideration and said
he had no comment but would be available for comments.
Number 541
R. B. STILES, President, Alaska Coal Association, stated that he
is, also, a member of the Alaska Miners Association and the
Resource Development Council. He said he would testify on his own
behalf and was not testifying on behalf of the organizations.
MR. STILES expressed opposition to SB 250 for two reasons but
clarified that there are two problems association with being in
opposition to the legislation. " One, is the immediate appearance
that you are in opposition to the University of Alaska, which is
certainly not the case. Two, strong sponsorship of the bill, which
also controls a whole lot of other parts of our destiny."
MR. STILES declared that this is the third time he has seen the
bill. "The resource development community was assured an
opportunity to comment on this bill before it came up this third
time. That opportunity was never granted. We are faced today with
a set of amendments that none of us have seen before, so, it is
very difficult for us to change our lack of support for this
particular piece of legislation."
MR. STILES expressed his personal opinion that were this bill to
pass, the net economic effect on the affairs on the university
would probably be "zip." "Certainly, there is no tentative
advantage that is being granted to the university, vis a vis, other
state land as a result of this bill. So, until we have time to
review these amendments, we will continue to be in nonsupport."
Number 656
MARTIN EPSTEIN, Director, Lands Management Office, University of
Alaska, explained that this office would be responsible for
managing the lands should this bill be passed and signed by the
Governor, this year. He said he was available for questions during
the committee's deliberations today. He stated his support of CS
SB 250.
Number 677
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wondered if it was Mr. Epstein's view that
should this bill be passed that the university would benefit from
it.
Number 683
MR. EPSTEIN responded, "Yes, Representative Davies, it is my view.
We have been responsible for university trust lands for less than
10 years and have generated a significant amount of revenue for the
university, nearly $25,000,000. I believe that there still remains
opportunities for the university for economic development on state
land throughout the state."
Number 714
REPRESENTATIVE LONG referred to Commissioner Shively's statement
that the Administration would not consider a bill with oil and gas
provisions, and asked Mr. Epstein his feeling on that.
Number 725
MR. EPSTEIN believed that the Board of Regents would like to see
the opportunity for the university to obtain subsurface rights,
including oil and gas, to remain in this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE LONG asked if the bill would be acceptable without
those provisions.
Number 746
MR. EPSTEIN was not able to address the question without posing
that question to the board. He said his understanding was that
board's preference is to obtain oil and gas rights.
Number 762
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether Mr. Epstein had heard Commissioner
Shively's comments where he indicated that, at this time, he does
not know the Governor's view, of the present bill, which has been
modified significantly from that which was vetoed last year.
Number 794
MR. EPSTEIN addressed the chair, "I would suggest that the
university, while it has very modest land holdings, has held
competitive oil and gas lease sales, and has another one planned
for the Kenai, in the very near future, for our small holdings in
that area. The transfer of those rights to the university would
place in another organization the ability to develop such rights.
I would not say that it would double the ability to get resources
available for development but it would certainly increase because
of the motivation of our office to responsibility develop those
resources. In answer to your question, without consulting with the
regents, it would be my opinion that the regents would look for
state land, with other development opportunities, if oil and gas
were excluded."
Number 856
JEFF PARKER, Vice President, Trout Unlimited, and board member of
the Alaska Sport Fishing Association, testified in opposition to SB
250. "We opposed this bill in the past, we do today because we
see, again, no benefit to the university. We are concerned about
dedicated funds issues, and we see a potential for adverse impacts
in terms of creating conflicts between recreational use,
subsistence and commercial fishing and therefore the creation or
exacerbation of allocation issues.
MR. PARKER recommended three amendments: (1) address contiguity
issues in the land selection mechanisms and make those apply here.
For example, we have in place, usually, requirements that `length
of selections cannot surpass four times the width;' (2) we suggest
that you eliminate language allowing conveyance of tides and
submerged lands on page 8, lines 27 and 28; and (3) an amendment to
provide expressly that this bill does not create a property right
through the land selection (indisc). That means that there is not
an entitlement here when it authorizes the university to select up
to 350,000 acres."
Number 950
JONI GATES testified from Petersburg proposing an amendment on page
11, lines 9, 10, and 11 regarding publishing notices in newspapers,
and, general circulation, in the state, that provides the public
with information on the location. She proposed that the notice
include a map, shading the area of the land for sale. She related
that the Petersburg Pilot insert was a two inch notice that said,
"university land for sale, please call this number." A lot of
people did not pick up on it, or even see it, and I think it is
real important to put a map in there and let people know.
Number 1025
VERN CARLSON, Chair, University of Fairbanks Committee on the
Chamber, congratulated the committee on adopting the proposed
amendments to SB 250. "I think one of the major concerns, in
general, is how the university might administer these lands and
whether they would be responsible. I submit to you that what
better expertise, scientific knowledge and professionalism than to
allow the world renown, and respected experts, to advise in the
land use. Schools of business and management, tops in country; the
arctic biology and research, the envy of the academic world; the
geophysical, the leading (indisc.) in the world, and a great super
computer availability. What better tools, and advisors, and minds
can one have than those I just listed. This is where, once the
lands are conveyed or transferred, we will be able to benefit and
maximize."
Number 1105
MR. CARLSON continued, "We are speaking of land transfers, which is
the only resource that the state has as a commodity, but our
greatest resource, and renewable resource, is the students and the
education. Let's have a value-added product, that is a completed
product which happens to be the students and the better education
through the university."
Number 1131
ART BUSWELL, Retired Citizen of Fairbanks, testified in support of
SB 250 saying, "I believe this is an important issue before us."
He congratulated the committee on adopting the amendments and the
committee's favorable action, last year. He commended Senator
Frank, Representative Davies and the university for the changes
they made to help meet the Governor's objections.
MR. BUSWELL challenged earlier comments that "this is the third
time hearing the bill." He contended that the university has been
waiting since 1917 to get the land they should have gotten when the
Territory of Alaska accepted the land grant act. "I think it is
time that the university was given more responsibility to help take
care of itself."
Number 1205
BILL ROBERTSON, President and CEO, Greater Fairbanks Chamber of
Commerce, said the chamber represents, some, 700 business members
and 15,000 employees from the greater Fairbanks area. In June
1995, the chamber passed a resolution in support of SB 16, which
was, ultimately, vetoed by the Governor. The chamber continues to
be in support of legislation that will convey land to the
university, other than entitlement. The present legislation, as
amended, appears to be answering most of the questions of concern.
In times of declining revenues, we should take all opportunities,
such as this, to try to enhance the revenue base of the university.
As you know, we continue to seek funds to take care of deferred
maintenance and other costs that are associated with the
university. This is an opportunity and I think they have a proven
record of being able to gain revenue from land management.
MR. ROBERTSON pointed out that the 500,000 acres in the legislation
is less than one half of one percent of the state's entitlement of
104 million acres.
Number 1284
GREG PROBST, UAF Graduate Student, testified on behalf of the
University of Alaska students who oppose SB 250. "A handful of UAF
students are here today to speak in opposition to the bill as it
stands. An even greater number could not attend due to classes,
homework and other commitments."
MR. PROBST stated, "First of all, I would like to say that we,
wholeheartedly, support the educational initiative at the
University of Alaska, and we support funding for the university.
However, we oppose SB 250 because it would allow the University of
Alaska to develop land grant parcels and surface rights without
regard to the environment. We understand that the University of
Alaska has a draft land policy favoring sustainable development of
natural resources whenever possible. We are concerned that
economic and political realities often preclude sustainable land
use. Currently, pressing financial obligations forced the
University of Alaska to maximize revenues from land grants and
surface rights over the short term. This, unavoidably, results in
nonsustainable extraction of resources. As students, we are direct
beneficiaries of funds derived from irresponsible land
stewardship."
MR. PROBST proceeded, "Although, we believe in the mission of the
university, we cannot support the degradation of the environment
for the sake of education. Furthermore, although, we support the
university's policy toward sustainable development, our policy is
not strong enough to compel environmentally sound land management.
However, the force of law is. So, we would like to see the
sustainable development quality written into the law, and we oppose
SB 250 as it stands because it fails to do so. We also urge the
legislature to demonstrate its commitment to higher education by
funding the university through normal appropriation processes.
Number 1413
STUART PECHEK, longtime Fairbanks resident and commercial
fisherman, affirmed his support of the university achieving fiscal
integrity but felt that SB 250 is not the total answer. "I see
many red flags popping up by letting the university become a state
land business baron."
MR. PECHEK related that interaction with various UAF instructors
left him with the impression of unfavorable handling of the many
money matters (indisc. coughing, paper shuffling) ... some of this
may be personal, but there seems to be an incredible trend that
seriously questions the university's amount of good business sense.
It is hard to believe that would change and, to me, our state lands
are far too valuable for that kind of financial misuse."
Number 1473
MR. PECHEK continued, "If we are looking for another revenue
manager here, I support that one percent income tax."
Number 1530
MARI-EMILLE SWEIGART, UAF student and member, Student Conservancy,
testified in opposition to SB 250 not because it gives land to the
university, but because there is no language in the law to compel
environmentally sound land management. In the past, when the
university has been given land parcels, they have clearcutted the
land. This is not a sustainable use of resources. Clearcutting
eliminates wildlife habitat including streams, it eradicates
fisheries and hastens erosion. We cannot have nonsustainable
obstruction of natural resources and the university needs to take
responsibility and not degrade the environment. Therefore, in a
nutshell, I am opposed to the law because there is no language to
compel the university to use environmentally sound land management.
Number 1598
GARY PAUL, Natural Resource Management Major, UAF, supports an
enhanced revenue base for the university, but opposes SB 250 on the
basis of the value-added industries. "I do not think, at this
point, that the infrastructure exists in the state to where a
mature, value-added concurrence of benefit will develop from a
clearcutting type of revenue generated out of university lands."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN informed the committee that a number of students
from the University of Alaska Anchorage would testify via offnet.
Number 1668
TARA BRADLEY, UAA student, testified in opposition to SB 250
stating that a huge population of students, in Anchorage, signed a
petition and are adamantly opposed to the bill. She proceeded to
rapidly read a letter from the president of the Environmental
Action Club, which she said speaks the sentiment for much of the
community here:
"I am speaking on behalf of Anchorage students who are concerned
about clearcutting on remote old growth forests off the coast of
Yakataga. We are opposed to SB 250. It has been brought to our
attention that contractors at the University of Alaska have
clearcut more than 30,000,000 board feet of timber and that plans
are under way to logging another 200 million board feet.
MS. BRADLEY continued, "This proposal is frightening to students
because it is known that state biologists and ecologists have been
complaining that their agencies are underfunded and understaffed.
Cuts have deeply inhibited the ability of state agencies to monitor
an area and enforce environmental regulations before and after
clearcutting.
MS. BRADLEY said, "Rick Rogers, Senior Forester, University's
Statewide Office of Land Management, met with UAA's Environmental
Action Club on February 24th and stated that the department had
only one person in charge of monitoring the situation at Yakataga.
We found disturbing, his statement `we are not managing for
wildlife, we are managing for revenue.'"
MS. BRADLEY continued, "The state Department of Environmental
Conservation also answered questions pertaining to the effects of
clearcutting. It was stated that clearcutting stripped away the
diversity of the forest. A devastating environmental condition
resolved from soil erosion. Once, various species of trees, and
different plants, are eliminated, there is nothing to hold the soil
in place. Many forms of plants die from the collapse of the
ecosystem and those, which many survived, have lost their habitat.
MS. BRADLEY read, "In this area, our major concern is the mountain
goats. The location that is being clearcut has the largest number
of mountain goats, in the survey area, between Valdez and Icy Bay.
Goats are sensitive to disturbance and it is easy to ascertain what
destructive action clearcutting is to their habitat. Clearcutting
can not be an option. There are certainly other uses for the land.
It can be left open for recreation, tourism or (indisc.) The area
at Yakataga should be preserved. It addition, we are opposed to
legislation that can turn more public land over to the university
for further deforestation.
MS. BRADLEY continued to read, "We find the university's role as a
land manager disturbing. Pride in one's institution is very
important. UAA students would like our university to leave a
positive legacy. As students, we would like our university to
leave a legacy of intelligence, progression and foresight, not
environmental destruction."
Number 1870
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN addressed Ms. Bradley informing her that as a
pilot, a hunter and a 20-year resident of Alaska, he had yet to see
a mountain goat in the trees.
Number 1905
SOREN WUERTH informed the committee that Fish and Game biologists
in Cordova have mapped mountain goat habitats and the mountain
goats, in that area, have the highest concentrations of mountain
goats between Valdez and Icy Bay.
MR. WUERTH, UAA Alumni, stated his appall that his university is
clearcutting old growth rain forest in Cape Yakataga. The logging
operation, the university is conducting in this region, is reckless
and unsustainable. It is reckless because the only oversight of
logging practices comes from the Department of Fish and Game,
specifically, two people. These scientists who, already lack the
funds, visit the areas being logged without spending their own
money, will have even less of an ability to monitor timber
harvesting under proposed funding cuts. The university is failing
to comply with the intent of the Alaska State Forest Practices Act.
University land management is ecologically unsustainable because
slow (indisc.) road building, (indisc.) leaves poor drainage,
sediment erosion and inadequate revegitation.
MR. WUERTH continued, "I am also concerned that the university is
exporting jobs. Not only are raw logs being shipped out of the
country, but money generated from timber operations is being used
by the university to fund projects like the one called, `Timber for
China.' A project to explore marketing these raw logs in China.
China, while the university exports jobs to other counties, and
uses its revenues to find ways to export even more jobs outside.
Obviously, the university's land grant policy has been an
embarrassment to this institution. Why doesn't UAA's
Administrators work with, or even inform, its staff and faculty
about its land management decisions. Perhaps, their decisions
would not be so unpopular and controversial, if they had the
support of the students in the community."
Number 2079
SUSAN GARDINER DILLON, student, testified in opposition to the
clearcutting of University of Alaska land in the Cape Yakataga
area. "I am, also, opposed to granting the University of Alaska
500,000 acres for development. Contractors for the University of
Alaska have clearcut more than 30,000,000 board feet, near White
River, and plans are underway to clearcut another 200,000,000 board
feet in Cape Yakataga. We have gathered hundreds of signatures in
an attempt to stop the clearcutting in progress. Students are very
concerned about the university's land management practices." She
concluded by stating, "Please consider the hundreds of students,
who are registered voters, opposed to the university's land grant
legislation, and we look forward to receiving more signatures on
this issue as the legislative session progresses."
Number 2190
KEVIN TRITT, Senator, student government, stated,"We are looking at
the university's land management practices and policies, right now,
with one of our ad hoc committees. So, my opinions, right now,
represent my personal views and I am not speaking for the entire
assembly here. However, I am absolutely surprised since we began
addressing this issue that I have not seen the mobilization of the
large numbers of students that I have, behind any issue here on
campus, like I have from the logging issue that is going on right
now in Cape Yakataga.
MR. TRITT said, "My major concern, right now, is the future of the
state of Alaska because the university is where the leaders of this
state are built, in our university system. I am concerned that the
trend for development only, and, that is exactly what our Board of
Regents is looking at right now is ways to make money. Their only
viable option, as far as I know, that they have even considered,
are timber and oil development. I have sat in on Board of Regents
meetings and heard comments that I did not, exactly, appreciate.
They are talking about `getting the state off our back' to give us
more room to do whatever we want to do. I think the state serves
a very important role in managing its own land because they allow
public input, they make sure that wildlife is protected and
transferring these lands to the university, I am concerned that
those assurances that proper protection of land would not be as
well maintained as well if the land stayed in the state's hands.
I want to see the university, and, hopefully, the state look at
other some other alternatives besides timber and oil. I know we
have a vast resource up here, but all resources can be depleted.
We have seen that from our development, in this country, from the
East Coast, across the midwest to West Coast, and up to Alaska. It
is a trend and if we do not heed history, we are going to be in
trouble.
MR. TRITT said, "We are looking at proposing alternatives to the
Board of Regents, as far as alternatives they could do with their
land besides clearcutting and oil extraction. I believe that if
the university is going to serve its proper role, then it needs to
be progressive in some development in this state. By progressive,
I mean looking at some of these alternatives rather than relying on
... what has done a very good job of building this state. However,
those types of things are not going to last forever. Students here
are very conscious of the balance that is necessary to be
maintained on the planet and, I think, we all should. That is the
continuing trend, that is not something that is just a fad. It is
obvious. As we go into the future, we need to start looking at
these other alternatives. The Board of Regents is simply going by
the status quo, trying to put some money into their trust fund. I
want to see a little more time to work through this and look at
other alternatives besides just the timber and oil resource.
Because, if this goes through, that is the only thing they have got
in their mind right now and they are going to end up locking it up
like that for 20 to 50 years or something. If we have more time to
propose alternatives maybe we can have them suggest..."(CHANGE
TAPE)
TAPE 96-49, SIDE A
Number 000
MR. TRITT concluded his testimony stating, "We definitely stand
against SB 250 in current its form."
Number 068
SARA HANNAN, Executive Director, Alaska Environmental Lobby,
testified, "We are opposed to SB 250, the university land grant.
I want to talk about it in a philosophic and policy deliberation
for a moment. First of all, the University of Alaska is a land
grant institution. Land grant is a federal program. The state of
Alaska's obligation to fulfill land grant is fulfilled. The
(state) does not have a legal requirement or a moral obligation to
give the university any more land. They have a land trust provided
at statehood. Post statehood, the state of Alaska, has a legal
obligation to provide certain kinds of services, public schools
being one of them. Yet, we have never created a public school
endowment in the state, although, it was attempted in the mid
1980s. We have a legal obligation to provide public safety. We do
not have an endowment to provide the funding to provide public
safety mechanisms. The University of Alaska believes they would be
able to profit from a `gift' of land for their management. I would
venture to guess that any Alaskan or any Alaskan institution or any
Alaskan entity that you decide to `gift' land to, could generate
revenue and benefit from it. If we decide to do that for public
schools or for public safety or for public fisheries or for mental
health, we could do that. That is a policy deliberation, if you
choose to take that policy debate and pursue giving additional
gifts of land to the university, you should keep in mind that the
examples of the university generating revenue off their land is not
a hard equation."
Number 201
MS. HANNAN continued, "When the state is managing land for multiple
purpose, they cannot benefit one entity, explicitly, for revenue.
The state has to balance its interests when it looks at what it
does with `Parcel X.' If it is, purposefully, delineated for
revenue generation, that decision making grid is very narrow and
short and you quickly can tell. Can I make money off of it? Can
I sell the gravel? Can I sell the timber? Can I lease it? Can I
do a third party sale for commercial real estate? Much of the land
that is still undelineated, in the state of Alaska, does not have
a clear revenue generating option. It is land that Alaskans hunt
and fish on, fly over, travel on.
MS. HANNAN stated, "Now, we get into a lot of land that people are
using, and anytime someone is not going to get to use it, they are
going to be upset. Conflicts over land management arise and they
are, increasingly, going to happen as Alaska's expands. If you
decided to put 500 million acres or a million acres or 350,000
acres into aggressive revenue generating for the benefit of the
general fund of the state of Alaska, the Department of Natural
Resources could undertake that and generate additional revenue.
But, we have not made that a policy decision, we contend that this
is a shortsighted policy to benefit one entity while at the
detriment of cutting off our options for future revenue generated
for the state of Alaska.
MS. HANNAN said, "Within the land management policy of the
University of Alaska, (Ms. Hannan has a copy) they delineate how
they would try and take real estate and convert it into assets.
Some of it would be extracted resources, dig the travel, cut the
trees, but a large percent of their potential revenue generation
comes from third party resale of potential revenue generating
commercial properties. If your local government took land within
its municipal entitlement and decided, through a municipal planning
process, to resell it, for commercial real estate development, it
could do that. It would follow an extensive public process, your
community and your constituents would have deliberation with its
local government and that decision could be made. But, they could
not take any land that they have through municipal entitlement,
that is submerged lands or tidelands, and resell it."
Number 385
MS. HANNAN further stated, "The state of Alaska is one of the
states that reserves all public access to submerged and tidelands
to the public. Until last year, we did not let municipal
governments even select tidelands and submerged lands unless they
were a local government that existed prior to statehood. They
could not select tidelands and submerged lands because we realized
that what had happened on the East Coast was, everywhere someone
owns it, a fence goes up and no one gets to transect it. We have
decided, in the state of Alaska, that our public access to lands
and tidelands is very important, and restricting the resale of that
to third party is significant."
MS. HANNAN further commented, "Probably, the biggest growth in
tourism, in the state of Alaska, is going to be on our coast lands.
It is going to be on waterfront properties, it is going to be on
riverfront properties, and that is the land that is going to have
resale value. If the state of Alaska decides that it wants to have
large, commercial development on its tidelands, and submerged lands
up and down the coast, of our boroughs and bays that have great
fisheries, we can do that. But, we should do that with a conscious
policy, that is what you are undertaking. Not through gifting the
land to the university and letting them do a third party resale of
tidelands and submerged lands."
Number 426
MS. HANNAN concluded, "We think it is a bad policy for the state of
Alaska to undertake this gift to the university, we do not believe
that there is a legal obligation to do it, and we believe that
there are many policy questions that you should undertake before
this bill would pass from committee."
Number 478
JERRY McCUTCHEON testified from Anchorage emphasizing that the
timber at Cape Yakataga is "the finest timber in the world, bar
none." He spent several minutes expounding the magnificence of the
forested area and the enormity of its setting. He said, "It is
something that should be saved. You could make more money out of
that building a boardwalk through the area, and running tourists
through it, than you can selling timber off it in round logs and
shipping it to Japan."
MR. McCUTCHEON recommended, "We ought not to have any more timber
sales on state land until we can get the federal laws changed with
respect to the processing of timber in Alaska. He further
recommended that the legislature think over what it is they are
going to give the university, and their past experience, from what
I have seen, has not been good. A piece of property that now holds
Northway Mall, that whole square mile in that area, once belonged
to the University of Alaska and they sold it off for little or
nothing. I don't know how they got fumbled out of it because it
was supposed to be lease basis only."
Number 671
DAN RITZMAN, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, testified in
opposition to SB 250. Senate Bill 250 exempts selected public
lands from public oversight and state land planning requirements.
The University claims to be concerned about public input to its
land management but recent history does not demonstrate this. You
have heard a lot about the Yakataga timber harvest. Up here, in
Fairbanks, we had the Walmart fiasco, a few years ago, with
university lands, and this year, with SB 250 on the Senate side the
bill was fast tracked right past the public. There was only one
hearing in the Senate and the hearing was not even teleconferenced
and it left a lot of individuals across the state without a voice."
MR. RITZMAN said, "The bill removes 350,000 acres of public land
from public control, access to public lands traditionally used for
fishing, hunting, trapping and many other purposes which will be
lost or restricted after the transfer to the university. We
believe that this will lead to development conflicts on existing
uses of neighboring public and private land as well.
Number 767
MR. RITZMAN testified, "Senate Bill 250 is likely to violate the
dedicated fund prohibition in the state constitution. But, whether
or not the land giveaway is constitutional, the Northern Center
believes this is bad fiscal policy, the state will lose general
state revenues and the flexibility for future funding decisions.
MR. RITZMAN, "Finally, strictly speaking, this is not a question of
whether to develop or not, but how we make decisions on public
lands. Do we involve the public or do we turn the land over to,
essentially, private control, and keep the public out? Also, the
shares and the revenue from these lands, does everyone in the state
share or is it just a few individuals who share in revenue?
Number 824
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN talked about his concerns with the bill which
is the portion that allows the university to control the subsurface
rights and whether or not it is appropriate to, essentially, give
to the university, and take away some of the authority that the
legislature has in allocating money and setting policy on what
kinds of funds we give them. "If I had real warm, fuzzy feelings
about how the university manages their deferred maintenance and a
few other things, and I felt that they were doing a good job there
and in some of the other problem areas, I would probably be quite
a bit more in support of the bill. But, I am having some
reservations about it.
Number 902
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN synthesized that the university is trying to be
akin to other land grant colleges where they do actually have both
surface and subsurface. And, I am thinking now of the University
of Texas which actually was in the oil business as a pretty big
player. They since have depleted ... but they have been able to
expand their campuses and do a lot of things in Texas through that
source of revenue rather than depend so much on taxation or state
aid. I share your concern about some of the management practices
that we have been made privy to at the university, and I am not
sure that would, necessarily, apply to granting them land. You may
recall that when we debated this last year, that I had great
concern that, as a land grant school, as was brought out, that
should probably have been land granted from the federal government
rather than from the state government. All that aside, I think,
there is some merit to granting some land."
Number 978
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES could not resist commenting on what he
believes is the "red herring" about the deferred maintenance issue.
He said, "The university had requested funds, for over a decade,
specifically acknowledging that there was a deferred maintenance.
The legislature chose not to fund those requests. The university
has, through the Board of Regents, recognized that the legislature
is probably not going to step up at the plate. In the past two
years, through the reassessment process, the reallocation of
resources process that the university has gone through has made a
decision that is in operation now and the university will deflect
money from classrooms to maintain buildings, that is the only place
they have."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt the Board of Regents has been extremely
responsible in coming to that decision. "It is not a decision that
they came to lightly because they believe that the resources that
come, ought to be directed as much as possible to the classroom.
The capital needs of the university should be dealt with through
the capital budget but since the legislature is not going to do
that, the Board of Regents are now redirecting operating monies
into capital renewal and renovation. It is the only choice they
have, but it is a reluctant choice that they have made."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES pointed out that he felt that the state of
Alaska has not been any more responsible. "If you look across the
rest of the state, the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, the Court System, those buildings have all fallen into
disrepair in the same way and for the same reasons. We have a
deferred maintenance problem and it is not just at the university.
It is a billion dollars statewide. I do not think it is fair to
raise that as an issue whether the university is a responsible land
manager or not. I think it is a red herring."
Number 1106
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to the subsurface minerals issue on
6(i), there is an Attorney General's opinion on that. "The
university is being regarded as an agent of the state, and,
therefore, it is appropriate to transfer subsurface rights to the
university for management (indisc. House bell ringing) and any
other agency in the state might. But, the 6(i) restraints apply
and the university may not resell those subsurface rights to a
third party. The state cannot sell those rights and the university
will be bound by that same restriction. He said there were other
issues about ... whether it is a valid state purpose, which we
certainly believe that it is and that the university has to adopt
procedures substantially similar to whatever the state management
of mineral resources would be and we have amended that even more
tight in the bill today. A purpose in the transfer is the
Congressional purpose of ensuring long term revenue to the state
and the legislature would, in fact, continue ... and that gets to
the next issue, and that is the concern about whether the
legislature should be involved in how the funding is used. Under
the terms of this bill, any revenues, derived from this land, have
to be appropriated by the legislature each and every year. So,
there is no dedicated fund problem and there is no problem with the
legislature allocating resources. We are in the loop."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that Representative Davies had
addressed his concern about setting up a form of dedicated fund.
Number 1181
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS moved that HCSCSSB 250 (RES) move from the
House Resources Committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced that the House Resources Committee
would hear public testimony on HJR 64, Extension of Ketchikan Pulp
Company Contract beginning at 4:00 p.m. today.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that HB 548, North Star Oil and Gas
Leasing Payment would be on the committee agenda for Wednesday,
April 10.
ADJOURNMENT
Having no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|