Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/07/2000 01:15 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
February 7, 2000
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Reggie Joule
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 7(FIN) am
"An Act relating to the University of Alaska and university land,
and authorizing the University of Alaska to select additional
state land."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 7
SHORT TITLE: INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/08/99 14 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/8/99
1/19/99 15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 15 (S) RES, FIN
1/25/99 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
1/25/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
1/25/99 (S) MINUTE(RES)
2/01/99 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
2/01/99 (S) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
2/01/99 (S) MINUTE(RES)
2/03/99 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
2/03/99 (S) MOVED CS OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/03/99 (S) MINUTE(RES)
2/05/99 165 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP 3NR SAME TITLE
2/05/99 165 (S) DP: MACKIE, TAYLOR, GREEN, PETE KELLY
2/05/99 165 (S) NR: HALFORD, PARNELL, LINCOLN
2/05/99 165 (S) FN TO SB (DNR), FNS TO SB & CS (UA,
F&G)
2/05/99 165 (S) FN TO CS (DNR)
2/25/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
2/25/99 (S) <BILL HEARING POSTPONED>
3/04/99 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/04/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
3/04/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
4/23/99 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/23/99 (S) MOVED CS(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/23/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
4/24/99 (S) FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/24/99 (S) -- MEETING CANCELLED --
4/26/99 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/26/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/26/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/26/99 1085 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 2NR SAME TITLE
4/26/99 1086 (S) DP: TORGERSON, WILKEN, LEMAN, DONLEY,
4/26/99 1086 (S) PETE KELLY; NR: PHILLIPS, ADAMS
4/26/99 1086 (S) PREVIOUS FNS (DNR, UA, F&G)
5/03/99 1202 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 5/3/99
5/03/99 1203 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
5/03/99 1203 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
5/03/99 1203 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED Y11 N9
5/03/99 1204 (S) AM NO 2 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
5/03/99 1204 (S) AM NO 3 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
5/03/99 1205 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
5/03/99 1205 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 7(FIN) AM
5/03/99 1205 (S) COSPONSOR(S): PEARCE, MACKIE, WARD
5/03/99 1206 (S) PASSED Y15 N5
5/03/99 1206 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
5/04/99 1239 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
5/04/99 1239 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
5/05/99 1175 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
5/05/99 1175 (H) RES, FIN
5/05/99 1187 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): HALCRO
5/12/99 (H) RES AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 124
5/12/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
5/12/99 (H) MINUTE(RES)
5/14/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
5/14/99 (H) FAILED TO MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE
5/14/99 (H) MINUTE(RES)
5/18/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
5/18/99 (H) MEETING CANCELED
2/07/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
LORALI MEIER, Staff
to Representative Beverly Masek
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 126
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: As committee aide for the House Resources
Standing Committee, briefly explained the changes in the proposed
House committee substitute for SB 7 (Version S).
JIM POUND, Legislative Aide
for Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: As staff to the prime sponsor of SB 7,
provided information and answered questions.
DAVE LACEY
P.O. Box 81765
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 7.
BOB LOEFFLER, Director
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 800
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 7.
DICK MYLIUS, Resource Assessment & Development
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1130
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding SB 7 on
behalf of the Division of Mining, Land and Water.
SUE SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate
Alaska Conservation Voice (ACV)
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding SB 7 on
behalf of the ACV.
KEN TAYLOR, Director
Division of Habitat and Restoration
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Voiced concerns regarding SB 7 on behalf of
ADF&G.
CLIFF EAMES
Alaska Center for the Environment (ACE)
519 West 8th, Number 201
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Voiced concerns regarding SB 7 on behalf of
the ACE.
DICK BISHOP, Vice President
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
[address not provided]
POSITION STATEMENT: Voiced concerns and testified in support of
the proposed House committee substitute for SB 7 (Version S),
which appears to address those concerns.
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President
Statewide University Relations
University of Alaska
P.O. Box 755200
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 7 on behalf of the
University of Alaska.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-7, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR MASEK called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Masek, Hudson, Cowdery, Harris and
Whitaker. Representatives Barnes and Kapsner arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
SB 7 - INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA
Number 0117
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 7(FIN) am, "An Act relating to the
University of Alaska and university land, and authorizing the
University of Alaska to select additional state land."
CO-CHAIR HUDSON made a motion to adopt proposed HCS CSSB 7(RES),
version 1-LS0072\S, Luckhaupt, 2/5/00 (Version S), as a work
draft. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 0205
LORALI MEIER, Staff to Representative Beverly Masek, Alaska State
Legislature, serving as committee aide for the House Resources
Standing Committee, explained the changes in Version S. She
referred to page 5, line 3, where new language had been added:
(2) is located within a municipality that has not
received at least 80 percent of its land entitlement
under AS 29.65 and is not vacant, unappropriated,
unreserved land; in this paragraph, "vacant,
unappropriated, unreserved land" has the meaning given
in AS 29.65.130;
MS. MEIER informed members that it puts the University of Alaska
on the same selection level as the municipalities. In current
statute, the municipalities can only select vacant,
unappropriated, unreserved land (VUU land) within their
boundaries, but the University of Alaska is allowed to select any
land within the boundaries. She indicated that the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) had said that only seven municipalities,
mostly in Western Alaska, have not selected the majority of their
land. Therefore, the goal was to make the changes specific to
those seven municipalities by setting the requirement that unless
the municipalities have at least 80 percent of their land
entitlement, the University of Alaska is only allowed to select
VUU land within their boundaries. Ms. Meier pointed out that in
the case of the Lake & Peninsula Borough, the entitlement is
greater than the VUU land available.
MS. MEIER next referred to page 6, line 20, where new language
had been added:
(1) includes land that the commissioner, in
consultation with the commissioner of fish and game,
determines has demonstrated value to the public as a
habitat area that is especially critical to the
perpetuation of fish or wildlife;
MS. MEIER explained that this basically protects public interest
in special lands. The amendment was spurred by the situation in
Cape Yakataga when the University of Alaska logged the thin strip
of forest between the mountains and the ocean, thus damaging
possible habitat between the two.
MS. MEIER referred to page 7, line 23, where new language had
been added:
(E) any easement, right-of-way, or other access
claimed, reserved, occupied, or possessed by the state
and
MS. MEIER explained that this protects public access to the
University of Alaska conveyed lands, as does the new language
added on page 8, line 31, through page 9, line 5:
(m) The commissioner may not convey land
under this section unless the commissioner
reserves easement, rights-of-way, and other
forms of access
1) required under the Constitution
of the State of Alaska or other law; and
(2) sufficient to ensure all
current access, and reasonably foreseeable
future access, to adjacent public or private
land or water.
MS. MEIER referred to page 9, line 6, where new language had been
added:
Sec. 14.40.366. Management requirements for university
land. (a) The Board of Regents shall, by policy,
establish procedures for mineral entry or location and
mineral leasing on university land selections made
under AS 14.40.365 that are substantially similar to
mineral entry, location, and leasing procedures for
state land under AS 38.05.185 - 38.05.275.
MS. MEIER explained that this means the University of Alaska will
have the same mineral management requirements that exist on state
land. The final change Ms. Meier explained was on page 13, line
22, through page 14, line 26 [Sections 8-11 were new]:
* Sec. 8. AS 41.17.115(b) is amended to read:
(b) The commissioner shall adopt regulations for the
protection of riparian areas; the regulations may include higher
standards of protection for fish and other public resources on
land managed by the department or owned by the University of
Alaska than on public land or private land. The regulations may
vary by region of the state and must take into consideration
reasonable classification of water bodies and the economic
feasibility of timber operations.
* Sec. 9. AS 41.17.118(a) is amended to read:
(a) The riparian standards for state land,
including land owned by the University of Alaska, are
as follows:
(1) on state forest land managed by the department
or owned by the University of Alaska that is located north of
the Alaska Range, harvest of timber may not be undertaken within
100 feet immediately adjacent to an anadromous or high value
resident fish water body unless the division determines that
adequate protection remains for the fish habitat;
(2) on state forest land managed by the department
or owned by the University of Alaska that is located south of
the Alaska Range,
(A) harvest of timber may not be undertaken
within 100 feet immediately adjacent to an anadromous or high
value resident fish water body;
(B) between 100 and 300 feet from the water
body, timber harvest may occur but shall be consistent with the
maintenance of important fish and wildlife habitat.
* Sec. 10. AS 41.17.950(11) is amended to read:
(11) "other public land" means state land managed
by state agencies other than the department or the University of
Alaska and [,] land owned by a municipality [, AND LAND OWNED BY
THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA];
* Sec. 11. AS 41.17.950(13) is amended to read:
(13) "riparian area" means
(A) the areas specified in AS 41.17.116(a) on
private land in the coastal forest of spruce or hemlock;
(B) the areas specified in regulations
adopted by the commissioner under AS 41.17.116(b) on private
land outside the coastal forest of spruce or hemlock;
(C) the area 100 feet from the shore or bank
or an anadromous or high value resident fish water body on
state land managed by the department or owned by the University
of Alaska and on other public land;
MS. MEIER explained that this means the University of Alaska will
be subject to riparian management standards that are required on
state lands under the Forest Practices Act.
Number 0465
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY noted that in the privatization work done
over the interim, one recommendation was for the governor to
endow the University of Alaska with 250,000 acres of land and to
try to get a federal match.
MS. MEIER pointed out that committee packets contain a copy of
the federal legislation that is currently in Congress.
Number 0635
JIM POUND, Legislative Aide for Senator Robin Taylor, Alaska
State Legislature, speaking on behalf of the prime sponsor of SB
7, pointed out that the riparian requirements are a bit redundant
since all land in Alaska now falls under the Alaska Forest Act.
He explained that the bill has been around for approximately 10
or 15 years and initially goes back to 1915, when the University
of Alaska - then called the College of Agriculture and Mining -
was established as a land grant college. The land granted to the
college became the property of the state under the Alaska
Statehood Act, and there was an assumption by Congress that the
land would be transferred back to the University of Alaska;
however, that still has not been done.
MR. POUND emphasized that the purpose of the bill is to give the
University of Alaska the land grants that it was promised by the
federal government prior to statehood. The copies of the Senate
and House bill from the congressional side are identical, he
said, and include 250,000 acres from the federal government. He
explained that part of that is a cleanup where land that was
conveyed to the University of Alaska is now in national parks or
national wildlife refuges. It is a show of good faith on behalf
of the state for 250,000 acres; that means it is more salable for
the Alaska delegation in Washington, D.C., and also the
University of Alaska could ultimately end up with 750,000 acres,
with 500,000 acres of that coming from the federal government.
MR. POUND indicated the money will go into a trust account that
will be drawn on primarily as an "interest situation," similar to
the permanent fund, but it will be specifically designed for the
University of Alaska. Currently, the budget request from the
governor for the University of Alaska is $189,301,800. It is
hoped that if the University of Alaska has this land available to
it - given a fairly conservative estimate of $1,500 per acre at
60 percent of the sale - it should be able to produce $74 million
annually. Mr. Pound noted that there are advantages to the
municipalities; for example, if a municipality were dealing with
land that it doesn't have the ability to develop or sell, or if
the land were moved out into development status, it would create
a tax base for municipalities that they currently do not have
from raw land.
Number 0991
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS wondered what the policy and practices of
the University of Alaska are currently with the lands that it has
for development or revenue enhancement.
MR. POUND responded that at the current time the land that the
University of Alaska has available is generating approximately
$32 million annually to its revenue source.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked whether the University of Alaska has
a projected revenue stream from the 250,000 acres from the state
as well as the possible 250,000 or more acres from the federal
government.
MR. POUND indicated he does not have any firm numbers, because a
lot of it has to do with what the land is used for.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS requested clarification that the University
of Alaska does have the option to sell the land.
MR. POUND responded, "Yes. As I understand the way the bill is
written, they should have the ability to transfer that land to
private ownership."
Number 1150
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered why the federal bill is in any way
tied to an amount of land being made available to the University
of Alaska from the state.
MR. POUND explained that as he understands it from Congressman
Young's office, this bill is a good-faith effort on behalf of the
state; there is an assumption in Congress that the land was
transferred to the State of Alaska upon statehood, and that the
state should be transferring it to the University of Alaska to
complete the process.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out that even if the state
transfers the 250,000 acres, there is no guarantee that the
federal government will transfer any land.
MR. POUND said, "Absolutely. These bills are in Congress and
could end up anywhere."
Number 1252
DAVE LACEY testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He
stated that he is opposed to SB 7 for the following three
reasons: First, land disposals in rural Alaska hurt the
residents, because they cause more people to compete for the
limited subsistence resources, which damages the rural economy
and [adds] more people who will qualify under the ANILCA (Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act) laws as rural residents
who are available for hunting privileges in case of resource
shortages. Second, it will promote rapid exploitation of the
state's resources instead of a more value-added type of
development that will support the local economies. And third,
the land selection process that the University of Alaska has to
go through will be cumbersome, expensive and drawn out. He
indicated it would be much more efficient to appropriate the
money from the general fund.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY pointed out that the state has quite a bit
of land, some acquired through foreclosures. He wondered how Mr.
Lacey felt about that land being made available.
MR. LACEY replied that he would have to take a closer look at
that. He reiterated that his main concern is sticking people in
rural areas who will compete for the resources and will want
electricity and roads that the state cannot afford.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY explained that the same thing was said in
the homesteading days, and if there had not been services
eventually to those areas, there would not be as many communities
today, especially in the Railbelt region.
Number 1522
BOB LOEFFLER, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage. Speaking in opposition to SB 7, he testified as
follows:
This bill, which appropriates state land and subsurface
resources and the revenue from them to the University
of Alaska, is very similar to bills passed by the
legislature in 1995-96 and actually 1959. Each time,
those bills have been vetoed, including the 1959
version, which was vetoed by Governor Bill Egan.
Therefore, it will come as little surprise to you today
that I am in fact testifying in opposition to SB 7.
I've got a couple points and would like to take just a
few minutes of your time.
The first and most important point is that this bill
would set the university in competition with the new
municipalities that we all hope will be forming in the
unorganized portion of Alaska. It also has them in
competition with existing municipalities. I'd like to
expand on that for a second. While all of us are aware
that the state has tremendous acreage, only a very
small amount of that land produces revenue.
As a result of the Mental Health Trust litigation and
settlement process, and the effort to convey municipal
entitlement to existing communities for their
commercial, residential and industrial uses, we found
that there is minimally viable development land: that
is, a small portion of our land is useful for
development. And since the purpose of SB 7 is to
convey those lands to the university for revenue-
generation purposes, it only follows that the
university will select the most productive lands.
... As many of you know, half of Alaska remains in the
unorganized borough. A university entitlement will
make it very difficult for future boroughs to receive
any development entitlement land. This is a serious
issue for the state, [because] a lack of good lands
will remove one of the few remaining incentives for
municipal incorporation, should they ever be required
to incorporate. This bill may ensure that they have no
good tax base with which to generate revenues to
support themselves. In short, with respect to the
unorganized borough, this is an appropriation not from
the general fund or not from the state to the
university but, in fact, from new boroughs that may, in
fact, incorporate to the university.
The second half of this is competition with existing
municipalities. While the amendment on page 5 goes
quite far to eliminate some competition with
municipalities, in fact, the university would still get
a lot of land that would otherwise go to the existing
municipalities. And this is true for two reasons:
First, entitlements have a tendency to be an iterative
process. They select, things change, we reject, they
select new ones. And at the point the university jumps
in, they then become ahead in line. Second, we would
expect the university to get theirs first since they
are funded to get theirs, and municipalities, for the
most part, are not. So, I believe that the competition
with new municipalities and, secondly, with existing
ones, is a serious disadvantage to this bill.
The second point is that I believe that this bill will
have a significant and adverse impact on development of
the state. Let me give you a few examples, and I guess
the reasons are twofold. First, the first example I'd
like to use is - as we're all proud of - there has been
a mining claim boom in this state, and a boom in the
mining industry more or less since the settlement of
the Mental Health Trust. That, as a fixed and
understandable land ownership, is critical for
development, and I believe that this would introduce an
element of confusion into that. Second, especially in
the unorganized boroughs, this would allow the
university to select lands basically to make money off
of development projects, and let me give you a few
examples. As many of you know, the Pogo Mine is in the
process of permitting; while we don't know whether or
when it would be permitted, the university would have
no impediment to selecting the only available access
routes. Thus, in fact, Teck Corporation would be
negotiating not only with the state but with the
university on royalties. [A] second example would be
Donlin Creek, should that ever go, and that's on Native
land. The only access is from state land, which is, in
fact, selectable under this process, so that you could
expect, then ... that the mining company would be
negotiating with the university. And I believe that
this could occur throughout the state.
The third is the impact on what I'd call sort of rural
issues. ... The bill allows selection of any land in
the rural areas except for, in this amendment, those
especially critical to the maintenance of fish and
wildlife species, and I don't have that wording
exactly. But in rural areas throughout the state,
there is no impediment to the university's selecting
areas for traditional use, subsistence - all of the
things used by the local public that, in fact,
municipalities were forbidden to select. And so I
believe this would exacerbate the sort of
rural/Railbelt tensions that unfortunately exist in
this state.
The fourth problem is its impact on state programs.
Assuming that the university would select timber lands
and lands for land sales, one would assume that they
would select the lands either - with respect to timber
- closest to existing access or - with respect to land
sales - that are closest to being sold. That would
probably have a significant effect to reduce or
eliminate the near-term timber and land sale program,
although certainly in the long term - these programs -
there are other lands to sell.
... I note in subsection (h) on page 7 that there is
what appears to be a constitutional confusion, and that
is - while I haven't talked to the Department of Law,
because this was just pointed out - it appears that the
land in this bill is state land in the sense that it
includes subsurface resources; but subsection (h) on
page 7 appears to exempt university land from many of
the requirements of the constitution.
As you know, if the land is state land, in fact, the
law cannot exempt state land; that is, the legislature
cannot exempt state land from constitutional
requirements. And two requirements in particular I'd
like to point out. The first is sustained yield.
While I believe there is some controversy as to whether
trust land gained from the federal government is
required to be managed according to sustained yield
timber harvest, there is no doubt that state land is.
The second is land from the federal government doesn't
have the same public notice and meaningful public
involvement requirements that the constitution imposes
on us, but there is no doubt in my mind that this land
would have those requirements; thus the university
would not - if I'm correct, and I do believe we need to
check with the Department of Law - that the university
would not be allowed to dispose of this land without
complying with the public notice and public involvement
requirements the court has found in the constitution.
And the last point is, in fact, that I believe this
bill is relatively expensive and an unwise use of state
money; that is, our conservative estimate that it will
cost more than a million dollars per year for at least
ten years, while the bill provides that these costs
will be borne by the university, they're still state
moneys that could best spent operating the university
rather than transferring lands from one state agency to
another.
Furthermore, there [are] some timing implications. The
money to transfer the land comes up-front. The revenue
comes later, especially in today's budget environment.
Paying costs today where the revenues don't come in for
many years, a decade or so, could certainly be a
problem. So, this bill spends money and reduces the
appropriation flexibility for the legislature. I
believe that money would be better spent funding the
university directly. Madam Chairman, thank you for
this opportunity. I'm available if you have any
questions.
Number 2068
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated that the state provides lots of
services to rural Alaska at the present time. He stated that Mr.
Loeffler is making a lot of other assumptions that are not based
on facts. He pointed out that some accommodations for the
university would allow it to benefit from something rather than
state dollars. The state has a lot of other high priorities. He
asked what Mr. Loeffler would recommend that the state cut from
its budget in order to get the money for the university.
MR. LOEFFLER answered that he believes the bill would require
money to be spent now. It is a cost, not a revenue, for the
near term, because it costs money to transfer land, and any
revenue would come in the long term.
Number 2198
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER stated, "I'm trying to couch this without
being overly aggressive. ... Were you instructed to convolute a
rationalization for a predisposed position?"
MR. LOEFFLER responded, "No, sir."
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked, "You've come to these conclusions
logically, based upon the facts, is that correct?"
MR. LOEFFLER replied, "I believe so, sir." He indicated that if
his logic was not clear, he was willing to elaborate on it.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said, "Your first item of opposition
related to the competition for land with unorganized areas. ...
How many areas are in the process of currently organizing, that
you're aware of?"
MR. LOEFFLER replied, "I don't know of any areas before the Local
Boundary Commission, although I guess I wouldn't know, but I
suspect there are very few. Our concern is really for the long
term - we hope that many of them organize."
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked, "And are you manifesting those
hopes in any way?"
MR. LOEFFLER stated, "No, sir."
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER continued:
That being the case, then one would come to the logical
conclusion that if none are organizing and if the
administration is not facilitating organization, that,
then, if that is the reason for opposing land to the
university under its land grant status, that that
would, then, be postponed indefinitely. That would
seem some what illogical, would you not agree?
MR. LOEFFLER replied:
There have been a number of mandatory borough bills
that have been introduced, and it is certainly feasible
that such will be introduced and passed in the future,
but I agree ... that the ability to do some of this
management is in trust for future municipalities. But
it is certainly the legislature's choice if they should
decide to give it to the university instead.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER continued:
Your second logical conclusion was that an adverse
impact on development to the state would result and
there would be confusion in development. I find that a
tremendous leap of logic in that the university has as
its mandate to develop these lands. ... Now, how is it
that an organization that is mandated with developing
lands for their own benefit, and for the benefit of the
state, would somehow have an adverse impact on
development?
Number 2381
MR. LOEFFLER answered:
My conclusion stems in two ways. First, it stems from
experience with the Mental Health Land Trust. I think
there is no doubt that the Mental Health Land Trust has
a fiduciary responsibility to develop those lands.
That they are, but yet there is no doubt that the
Mental Health Land Trust had an impact that we all
regret on the development of the state. The second is
through development projects that I am personally
involved with, an example being ... the Donlin Creek
Mine; that is, if there are two land owners involved,
or three in this case - the state, the state public
domain and the university - the more landowners, the
more difficult it is. And those are the source of my
comments.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER responded:
On that particular point, then, would it not be a
logical assertion that given one of the two landowners
being absolutely motivated to develop those lands, that
that might enhance the development, that might serve as
a catalyst rather than an [inhibitor].
MR. LOEFFLER explained:
Typically, the second landowner acts as a tax. That
is, ... while we're certainly working with the Mental
Health Trust, ... the source of the Mental Health
Trust, it's financial. It costs money, and their
motivation may be money, where in some cases ours is
jobs. And so that's a slight change, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER declared:
And certainly I would not argue with specifics, but
generally speaking, I think that there is a lack of
logic in the assertion that given the advantages of
development to the university, ... it would be adverse
to development. If I might then continue, Madam Chair,
with regard to the assertion that ... an investment, if
you will, by the university - in itself, by itself, in
itself, that would ... be a result of this bill - is
some how adverse to the budget. I find that amazing,
when, in fact, at the urging of the administration, the
legislature has passed innumerable bills that relate to
a future investment. And now you're telling us that
that is not a wise course to follow. Again, that's not
a question, because I've reached the point that I'm not
asking questions anymore. I continue to assert that
this is a convoluted rationalization to shore up a
predisposed, politically motivated position.
Number 2541
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to Article VIII, Section 1, of the
Constitution of the State of Alaska, where it reads, "It is the
policy of the state to encourage the settlement of its land and
the development of its resources by making them available for
maximum use consistent with the public interest." She asked what
the state is doing at the present time to fulfill that.
MR. LOEFFLER replied that almost all of the state programs at DNR
are intended specifically toward that end.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Loeffler to elaborate on what the
programs are.
Number 2592
MR. LOEFFLER provided a list of programs: land disposal,
permitting, mariculture, setnet leases, trapping cabins, oil and
gas, minerals, timber harvest, transportation and municipal
entitlements. He added that he may have left some out.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Loeffler to list specific land
disposal programs. She also wondered what is being done by DNR
to resolve the problems with mariculture.
MR. LOEFFLER stated that, with respect to land disposal programs,
in fiscal year 2001 they expect to have three new subdivisions,
about 100 remote parcels. He explained that they have a lottery
program, a subdivision program and a remote recreation program.
He indicated, with respect to mariculture, that they have a
series of best-interest findings to provide leases for the people
who qualify under the mariculture program. He added that they
have been working with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game and
the applicants over the past year to try to resolve the
mariculture problem.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked how much land has been disposed of by
the state for utilization by its people over the last five years.
MR. LOEFFLER indicated that he cannot give that answer off the
top of his head, but that it hasn't been that much. He explained
that since statehood it has been about 400,000 acres. In the
last 20 years, since the advent of modern land disposal programs,
it has been around 180,000 to 190,000 acres, not counting the
homestead programs and large agricultural disposals.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered if Mr. Loeffler could discuss the
land other than that made available for agriculture.
DICK MYLIUS, Resource Assessment & Development, Division of
Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He explained that
they have had three land sales in the last four years, which were
parcels that were re-offered, having been surveyed and subdivided
previously. In total, probably 500 or 600 non-agricultural
parcels were sold. He pointed out that the reason they don't
have a big land disposal program is simply a function of budget:
they have not been funded significantly for land disposal since
the late 1980s.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asserted that the land that has been
previously surveyed and identified does not need a huge budget,
since it is land that has already been surveyed. She asked how
much of that land is currently available to the Division of
Mining, Land and Water that can be made available to the public.
MR. LOEFFLER explained that he believes they have 5,000 parcels,
which encompass approximately 50,000 acres. The three things
that need to be done to make that land available are: do title
searches within DNR; reappraise the land, because much of it is
rural homestead land that has never been appraised and the rest
that have been appraised are out of date; and work out a way to
do a limited appraisal. This means the land can be put up for
somewhere between $12 and $40 per acre.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY requested that Mr. Loeffler send the
committee a written report on what has happened with disposal in
the past five years and what the program is for the next five
years.
MR. LOEFFLER said he would be delighted to that. He emphasized
that the land disposal program, to some extent, is driven by
budget: even though it makes more than it costs, the Division of
Mining, Land and Water or DNR cannot keep that money. The money
goes into the general fund.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he doesn't see how DNR can get money
except through the appropriation process.
MR. LOEFFLER clarified that he wouldn't recommend any, and he
apologized if the implication was there.
TAPE 00-7, SIDE B
Number 2957
SUE SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate, Alaska Conservation Voice
(ACV), came forward to testify as follows:
Alaska Conservation Voters, formerly Alaska
Conservation Voice, is a not-for-profit organization
dedicated to protecting Alaska's environment through
public education and advocacy. Our 40 member
organizations represent over 21,000 registered Alaskan
voters. ACV believes investment in our university
system is critical for the state's continued economic
prosperity and for enabling the state's participation
in the developing intellectual and knowledge-based
economy that is fueling our country's progress. We
support funding that will guarantee a strong university
system now and in the future.
ACV is pleased to see that the new draft committee
substitute of SB 7 addresses several of our concerns
with environmental impacts on this legislation, namely,
providing for consultation with ADF&G and requiring
increased protection of riparian areas. Nevertheless,
we continue to believe that SB 7 does not guarantee
adequate or reliable funding for the university.
Simply put, the university's full attention should be
directed towards education, where it has expertise, and
not be diverted towards the complex and often
contentious arena of land management. We urge you to
oppose this legislation and instead seek more
effective, viable ways that address the imminent
financial needs of the university.
We continue to have serious concerns with SB 7,
including:
It robs Alaskans of more effective opportunities to
capitalize on our natural assets, rather than simply
liquidating them to finance a specific state function.
It is deleterious to local economies. Because the
university must seek to maximize revenue, it has
rapidly liquidated its existing timber assets and then
exported these valuable Alaskan resources, in the
round, at significant cost to local economies. During
past timber sales such as those at Yakataga, the
university has ignored local processing and local-hire
opportunities.
Because of the university's aggressive development
polices, the bill threatens fish and wildlife
resources, as well as the subsistence, recreational,
and commercial uses that depend on them. It threatens
community water sources and local use, expansion and
planning. At both the local and regional [levels],
university land selections would further complicate
confusing land ownership patterns and make sorting out
the conflicts a costly and time-consuming process.
Even with the language in the new draft committee
substitute to ensure access, SB 7 may impact highly
valued access rights on selected lands that the
university chooses to sell to a third party or develop
in such a way as to preclude access. Potentially at
risk are the hunting, fishing, skiing, mushing, and
innumerable other recreational commercial activities
that Alaskans depend upon.
Alaskans deserve a strong university for our children,
but we urge you to support the university through
appropriations, not through land giveaways like SB 7.
Number 2776
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether Ms. Schrader is aware of the
state budget deficit.
MS. SCHRADER replied, "Yes."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked where Ms. Schrader would propose that
the state get the money to fund the university.
MS. SCHRADER replied that she has followed all of the budget
discussions for many years, but she does not have the answers.
She pointed out that one possible consideration, with a careful
approach, would be to use some of the permanent fund earnings.
She indicated that she believes helping to support the university
is a valid use of those funds.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered if the ACV will change its mind on
RS 2477 rights-of-way, which it has traditionally opposed.
MS. SCHRADER replied that ACV probably will not. She explained
that there are many aspects to the access issue and RS 2477 is
just one of those. She clarified that it does not mean that the
ACV members have any less interest in maintaining appropriate
access by appropriate means to public land.
Number 2666
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered if Ms. Schrader could identify
what she means by appropriate access.
MS. SCHRADER indicated that it would obviously vary, depending on
who is being addressed; it has to be taken on a case-by-case and
area-by-area basis. There are certainly public lands that lend
themselves well to all types of access, including motorized, and
there are other lands where, for a variety of reasons - mainly
habitat protection and conflicting uses - it is better to look at
a more controlled form of access.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered if ACV would be in support of
logging in the state.
Number 2611
MS. SCHRADER pointed out that one of the 40 organizations of the
ACV is the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, which has
always supported a sustained value-added timber industry in
Southeast Alaska. She added that the ACV would certainly be in
support of a sustained value-added timber industry in portions
of Alaska, although it is difficult when trying to compare the
boreal forest around Fairbanks to the temperate rainforest in
Southeast. She emphasized that ACV's support would depend upon
where the activity was taking place.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES noted that she has never heard from anyone
from a conservation organization in support of logging in the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered if Ms. Schrader thought the
private sector could do the disposal program without any costs to
the state.
MS. SCHRADER responded that she doesn't have that information.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY explained that the Federal Activity
Inventory Reform Act (FAIRA) gives a definition of an inherently
governmental function, and that function is so intimately related
to public interest as to require its performance by government
employees. He pointed out that the disposal of land probably
would not fit that category.
MS. SCHRADER replied that it is something one may want to look
into.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY pointed out that one area the legislature
might look at, to find some money, is activities that the state
does but which the private sector could do at a cost savings.
Number 2388
KEN TAYLOR, Director, Division of Habitat and Restoration, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), indicated he wanted to voice
some concern that the department had with the proposed committee
substitute (CS) that came to the committee. He noted that the
committee seems to have put a lot of effort into addressing some
of the points that he was going to make.
MR. TAYLOR told members that the department's main concerns have
to do with the disposal of land that is in either legislatively
designated areas - such as critical habitat areas, refuges or
sanctuaries - or other areas that the department has worked
through some process to identify - areas that are important for
fish and wildlife values or that are important as access points,
for people to access those resources.
Number 2274
CLIFF EAMES, Alaska Center for the Environment (ACE), testified
via teleconference from Anchorage. He indicated that the ACE has
consistently opposed proposals to provide additional land for the
University of Alaska, in spite of their strong support for the
university. They believe that such a transfer would create more
conflicts than solutions to problems. He informed the committee
that the ACE was heavily involved in the attempts to resolve the
Mental Health Land Trust situation, as well as several land
exchange attempts that would have transferred public domain land
into private or quasi-private ownership; there has been a huge
amount of conflict and litigation.
MR. EAMES pointed out that some of the ACE's concerns have to do
with whether a proposal might be an unconstitutional dedication
of funds; even if it is a legal disposal, they question whether
it will nevertheless violate the policy behind dedicating funds.
They believe that it is wise to devote a substantial part of
Alaska's resource base to a single entity and remove the
opportunity through the yearly appropriation process to make
decisions about what is most important.
MR. EAMES also expressed concern about the effect of the public
land-use planning process. They believe that in spite of the
attempt to ensure access to the land, it would, in fact,
eliminate or reduce a variety of existing public uses or the
quality of those public uses. It could adversely affect fish and
wildlife, although they [ACE] are pleased to see the new
provision that should reduce some of the impacts. He added that
the disposals and subsequent development would create conflicts
for rural residents and would reduce public participation in the
management of the land. He noted that they [ACE] would rather
see the university funded through general funds, and there might
be something that the state could do to build a strong private
endowment for the university. He pointed out that many - if not
all - conservationists do believe it would be wise to look at an
income tax for the state in order to raise sufficient revenues to
fund important programs.
Number 2073
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to the issue raised by Mr. Eames
about the constitutionality of the legislature's ability to
transfer lands. She directed his attention to Article VIII,
Section 9, in the Constitution of the State of Alaska, where it
reads:
Subject to the provisions of this section, the
legislature may provide for the sale or grant of state
lands, or interests therein, and establish sales
procedures. All sales or grants shall contain such
reservations to the State of all resources as may be
required by Congress or the State and shall provide for
access to these resources. Reservation of access shall
not unnecessarily impair the owners' use, prevent the
control of trespass, or preclude compensating for
damages;
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said the legislature therefore has the
authority to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY referred to the budget deficit and
wondered what Mr. Eames thinks the state should not fund, since
the state obviously cannot fund everything. He noted that if
there were a state income tax, as Mr. Eames recommended, it would
only produce about $260 million per year, yet there is a $600 to
$700 million state deficit.
MR. EAMES replied that he does not know where the income tax
figure came from and would need to explore that further, but they
would at least have some additional revenues. He added that
there might also be the possibility of using portions of the
permanent fund, as Ms. Schrader had pointed out.
Number 1896
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said it still goes back to the issue of
the general fund; the money will still have to be appropriated,
and there still is a large deficit. He added that the public had
voted on whether to use any of the permanent fund earnings, and
they were clear about not wanting to do that.
DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC),
indicated that the AOC has followed this legislation for a number
of years. He explained that the AOC supports the concept of
enhancing the self-sufficiency of the University of Alaska; they
hope that the potential of a significant university land base
will contribute to that goal. Their interests and concerns
relate to ensuring that the public purposes of state lands,
waters and resources are not seriously compromised, and that the
following are recognized and accommodated: prime fish and
wildlife habitat; public access to lands and waters; and fishing,
hunting and trapping. It appears that Version S addresses those
concerns, and the AOC supports passage of the bill.
Number 1590
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President, Statewide University Relations,
University of Alaska, pointed out the four top priorities: to
identify and dispose of non-appreciating assets; to actively
develop university land consistent with market demands; to
increase the pool of developable land; and to acquire additional
urban commercial property and land resources with near-term
development potential. She noted that a question had come up
regarding the annual receipts and what they are generating on the
property that they have right now, which about 150,000 acres.
She indicated that they currently have a land grant; the
endowment is $102 million and last year they generated about $8
million in earnings on those lands.
MS. REDMAN referred to Ms. Schrader's comment that the university
had liquidated its timber land in Yakataga; Ms. Redman clarified
that they have only cut 12 percent of the timber on the Gulf
Coast. Next she referred to Mr. Loeffler's comments regarding
competition with municipalities; she indicated that they had
tried to address that in the bill. She stressed the fact that
the governor and the commissioner have total control over what
lands are even available to the university to select, and there
is no opportunity for appeal by the university. She also
referred to Mr. Loeffler's comments on subsurface rights and
explained that it has been researched by many lawyers; the
university is a pre-statehood agency, which means that
university land grant lands are not subject to the same
provision. They do, in fact, have subsurface rights on their
lands, she noted.
MS. REDMAN pointed out that there are no general funds used to
manage university lands; all management costs come from the
proceeds of the land itself. She referred to Mr. Taylor's
comments on legislatively designated areas and pointed out that
those are excluded in the bill and have been since the very first
bill. She indicated that a couple of issues continue to come up.
For instance, the constitutionality question is another issue
that has been researched, and it has never been shown that this
would be unconstitutional. Rather, it is an effort on the part
of the university to try to find some small way to be self-
sustainable. She agreed with almost everyone that had testified
on the bill that land is not a panacea for the university; they
would much prefer to have money. She pointed out that land is a
very long-term investment and it will not solve the problems of
the university. However, it could provide a small annual stream
of revenue.
Number 1188
CO-CHAIR MASEK closed public testimony. She offered Amendment 1,
which read:
Page 4, lines 26-28:
Insert "not" after "shall"
Replace "unless" for "if"
Replace "acts to approve" for "does not disapprove"
New sentence to read:
A list of selections submitted shall not be
considered approved for conveyance to the University of
Alaska [if] unless the legislature [does not approve]
acts to approve the list during the legislative session
during which the list was submitted. [New text
underlined and deleted text bracketed]
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked whether there were any objections. There
being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked whether it was the intent of the
chair to move the bill.
CO-CHAIR MASEK indicated that she would like to hold it until the
next meeting.
Number 1036
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER stated that she is not in favor of seeing
the bill leave the committee at this time. She explained, for
example, that the Northslope Borough and the Northwest Arctic
Slope Borough haven't even selected all of their land. She
emphasized that she is not opposed to funding the university
system, but she is not sure this is the best way.
[SB 7 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0924
CO-CHAIR MASEK adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 2:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|