Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
03/30/2009 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR28 | |
| HCR10 | |
| HJR27 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HCR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 30, 2009
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 28
Urging the President of the United States and the United States
Congress not to adopt any policy, rule, or administrative action
or enact legislation that would restrict energy exploration,
development, and production in federal and state waters around
Alaska, the outer continental shelf within 50 miles of shore,
and elsewhere in the continental United States; urging the
President of the United States and the United States Congress to
encourage and promote continued exploration, development, and
production of domestic oil and gas resources.
- MOVED CSHJR 28(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10
Urging the Governor to file an action to restrain the United
States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, from
intruding on the sovereign right of the state to exercise
jurisdiction over navigable water and submerged land and urging
the Governor to allocate sufficient resources to the Department
of Law, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Department
of Fish and Game to defend the state's right to manage the
public use of its navigable water.
- MOVED CSHCR 10(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 27
Relating to sovereign powers of the state.
- MOVED CSHJR 27(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 28
SHORT TITLE: OPPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON OIL/GAS ACTIVITIES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHNSON
03/23/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/23/09 (H) ENE, RES
03/27/09 (H) ENE REFERRAL WAIVED
03/30/09 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HCR 10
SHORT TITLE: OPPOSE FED. CONTROL OF STATE LAND & WATER
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HAWKER
02/27/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/27/09 (H) RES
03/30/09 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HJR 27
SHORT TITLE: STATE SOVEREIGNTY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLY
03/19/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/19/09 (H) RES
03/30/09 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN BITTNER, Staff
Representative Craig Johnson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 28 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Johnson.
JASON BRUNE, Executive Director
Resource Development Council
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 28.
MARILYN CROCKETT, Executive Director
Alaska Oil & Gas Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 28.
TOM LAKOSH
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 28, but suggested an amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the sponsor, introduced HCR 10.
JOHN STURGEON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HCR 10.
ROD ARNO, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HCR 10.
STAN LEAPHART, Executive Director
Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HCR 10.
SCOTT HAMANN
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HCR 10.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the sponsor, introduced HJR 27.
JAMES FLOYD
Tok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 27.
SCOTT HAMANN
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged that HJR 27 be strengthened.
ROD ARNO, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 27.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:22 PM
CO-CHAIR CRAIG JOHNSON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives
Johnson, Neuman, Wilson, Tuck, Seaton were present at the call
to order. Representatives Olson and Guttenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress and Representative Kawasaki joined the
meeting via teleconference.
HJR 28-OPPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON OIL/GAS ACTIVITIES
1:03:00 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the first order of business
would be, HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 28, Urging the President of
the United States and the United States Congress not to adopt
any policy, rule, or administrative action or enact legislation
that would restrict energy exploration, development, and
production in federal and state waters around Alaska, the outer
continental shelf within 50 miles of shore, and elsewhere in the
continental United States; urging the President of the United
States and the United States Congress to encourage and promote
continued exploration, development, and production of domestic
oil and gas resources.
JOHN BITTNER, Staff, Representative Craig Johnson, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced HJR 28 on behalf of Representative
Johnson, sponsor. He reviewed the history of oil drilling
within the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) beginning in 1953 when
the U.S. Congress passed the Submerged Lands Act which granted
individual states the right to natural resources on submerged
lands up to three miles off of shore. The act also re-affirmed
federal claims to all resources on OCS submerged lands from
three miles offshore to two hundred miles, with a few
exceptions, he said. Later that same year, Congress passed the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act outlining the federal
responsibilities over these lands and authorizing the Secretary
of Interior to lease those lands for resource development.
Environmental activism in the 1960s and 1970s resulted in
passage of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean
Air Act, and creation of the Environmental Protection Agency.
He said these and other regulatory bills created the core of the
regulatory framework currently applicable to all extractive
industries.
MR. BITTNER noted that in the 1980s Congress passed various
area-specific moratoriums on OCS drilling and during this time
petroleum revenues dropped markedly for a variety of reasons.
By 1990 the bans on drilling had encompassed so much of the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone that a blanket moratorium on most areas
was enacted by the president. In 2008, President Bush rescinded
this moratorium and Congress followed suit by rescinding the ban
on OCS leasing. This allowed the U.S. Minerals Management
Service (MMS) to start the process of offering OCS lands for
lease. He related that the MMS estimates that 574 million acres
of the U.S. OCS are currently off limits and these banned areas
contain an estimated 17.8 billion barrels of oil and 76.5
trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas.
MR. BITTNER stated that a recently released economic report,
commissioned by Shell Oil on the economic impacts of OCS
development in Alaska, projects that roughly 35,000 jobs will be
created in the state over the 50-year period of OCS development
and exploration, with those jobs representing a combined payroll
of $72 billion. Direct petroleum revenue to the state is
estimated at $5.8 billion, the majority of which will directly
impact local governments through property taxes.
MR. BITTNER said President Obama is delaying the lifting of the
OCS drilling moratorium and Interior Secretary Salazar is
expressing interest in closing or severely limiting OCS
exploration and drilling in the Lower 48 in favor of an as yet
uncrafted comprehensive energy plan. He noted that this kind of
uncertainty adversely affects potential exploration and
development in these areas because companies cannot afford to
risk huge sums of capital to develop a resource unless there is
a reasonable guarantee that their investment will be secure. To
this effect, he said HJR 28 sends a clear message to the
President, Secretary of the Interior, and Congress that no laws
or administrative orders should be passed that would restrict
OCS drilling and exploration in Alaska or the continental U.S.
The resolution further urges that offshore exploration and
drilling be encouraged.
1:07:09 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked whether other states have come up with
resolutions similar to HJR 28.
MR. BITTNER answered that there has been a pretty broad support
among several states for OCS drilling. It took hold during the
recent energy crisis when oil and gas was expensive and
alternative sources of petroleum were being looked for. He said
he does not have any specific resolutions from states, but that
Congress has passed a resolution urging President Obama to
support OCS drilling.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired why HJR 28 only addresses
submerged lands as far out as 50 miles rather than the 200-mile
OCS limit.
MR. BITTNER understood that this is because HJR 28 only looks at
the resources in Alaska and most of Alaska's OCS resources
currently being considered for development are within the 50-
mile range.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON agreed with Mr. Bittner. Alaska is not a
signator on the Law of the Sea Treaty, he added, so the decision
was to keep the distance close.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether there is a separate
designation of a 50-mile zone.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said there is not, but that 50 miles is what is
being looked at by Shell Oil in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas;
thus, this is the area that he would like to address when
Interior Secretary Salazar visits Alaska in April 2009.
1:10:02 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN related that representatives from the Aleutian
Chain and Bristol Bay offered their support for off-shore
development while visiting Juneau earlier this year because such
development would create jobs and be safe.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted that beginning on page 2, line 31, the
resolution reads: "in federal and state waters around Alaska,
the outer continental shelf within 50 miles of shore, and
elsewhere in the continental United States...." He inquired
whether "elsewhere in the continental United States" expands the
resolution beyond Alaska's interests.
MR. BITTNER replied that HJR 28 specifically focuses on Alaska,
but does include provisions in support of outer-continental
drilling off the rest of the continental United States.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON added that the hope is other states will
support and include Alaska when they pass their own resolutions.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed his concern that Alaska's
interests not be tied to a conglomerate of other state's
interests and that Alaska speak for itself.
1:12:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that the other states might want to
address 200 miles offshore rather than 50 miles, given that 200
miles is what is included in the Law of the Sea Treaty.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON responded he would not oppose amending HJR 28
to 200 miles, even though the resolution was designed to
encompass the lease sales that are happening in Alaska right
now. He said he does not want to have Canada or Russia oppose
the resolution given that Alaska is not a signator on the treaty
and technically does not have jurisdiction over the 200 miles.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether there are any reasons
where it might not be in the state's best interest to develop,
such as geoducks or specific places.
MR. BITTNER said he is sure there are, but he does not know
about any specific sites since he does not know the combination
of biology and potential petroleum reserves. He pointed out
that before a lease can be issued, and even after it is issued,
significant environmental and biological impact studies must be
performed, which is taken into account.
1:15:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired whether HJR 28 would override the
wishes of local communities participating in the Coastal Zone
Management Plan.
MR. BITTNER answered that he understands the resolution would
not because it deals only with the views on OCS drilling of the
President, Secretary of the Interior, and Congress.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON interjected that a resolution only indicates
the legislature's wishes; it has no legal standing and would not
affect the Coastal Zone Management Plan.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON opened public testimony.
1:16:28 PM
JASON BRUNE, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
(RDC), supported HJR 28 on behalf of the RDC. He testified from
the following written statement [original punctuation provided]:
RDC is a statewide, non-profit, membership-funded
organization founded in 1975. The RDC membership is
comprised of individuals and companies from Alaska's
oil and gas, mining, timber, tourism, and fisheries
industries, as well as Alaska Native corporations,
local communities, organized labor, and industry
support firms. RDC's purpose is to link these diverse
interests together to encourage a strong, diversified
private sector in Alaska and expand the state's
economic base through the responsible development of
our natural resources.
Oil and gas resources located in the Outer Continental
Shelf out to 200 miles are vital to the economic
viability of a gas pipeline to the Lower 48 and the
continued operation of the Trans Alaska Pipeline
System [TAPS]. Indeed, an additional 15 TCF of
natural gas must be discovered for either the Trans-
Canada or Denali pipeline projects to be economically
viable over the long term. In addition, throughput in
TAPS continues its decline from 2.1 million barrels of
oil per day in the late 80s to one-third of that
today. This trend can be reversed with production
from the OCS where we should be encouraging
development, not hampering it.
No one has more care for the environment than
Alaskans, and OCS development has a strong track
record. It has coexisted with other industries
including fishing, in Cook Inlet, the North Sea, and
the Gulf of Mexico. Energy exploration, development,
and production in federal and state waters around
Alaska will occur in an environmentally-sensitive and
responsible manner overseen by the strongest of
regulatory regimes. When necessary, seasonal
operating restrictions and mitigation measures to
avoid conflicts with other resource users will be
employed.
Given the nation will remain heavily reliant on oil
and gas development for decades, America must harness
the significant energy resources beneath its most
promising onshore and offshore oil and gas basins. It
is important to take into consideration, when
formulating public policy, that for every barrel of
oil America refuses to develop domestically, it will
have little choice but to import an equal amount from
overseas - where weaker environmental regulations
often apply.
With the impact high-energy prices have on Americans
and their economy, the U.S. has a moral obligation to
develop domestic energy sources, and the OCS is the
ideal location. The resources located in the OCS will
buy us the time we need to develop the alternative and
renewable energy resources that will someday break our
reliance on foreign oil.
MR. BRUNE, in regard to earlier discussion, stated that leases
currently held in the Chukchi Sea are located between 60 and 120
miles offshore, in the Beaufort Sea they are up to 25 miles, and
in the North Aleutian Basin the prospective areas are out to 25
miles.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked whether Mr. Brune would support changing
the 50 miles to 200 miles.
MR. BRUNE supported the 200 miles.
1:21:06 PM
MARILYN CROCKETT, Executive Director, Alaska Oil & Gas
Association (AOGA), stated that AOGA is the trade association
for Alaska's oil and gas industry and it supports HJR 28. She
testified as follows:
Passage of this resolution will send an important
message to the President and lawmakers in the nation's
capital that Alaska recognizes the role that this
state can play in securing critical domestic energy
supplies. An energy plan for the nation will
absolutely need to include Alaska since this state has
over 30 percent of the nation's technically
recoverable resources. In the offshore alone, the MMS
estimates that Alaska's OCS contains an estimated 27
billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas resources. Furthermore, ... the Chukchi
Sea Basin ... has been characterized as the most
promising and materially undeveloped offshore
petroleum base in the U.S. So, clearly, Alaska can
play a very, very critical role in terms of the
nation's energy supply.
MS. CROCKETT noted that in addition to the jobs and payroll that
would result within Alaska from OCS development, $1.3 trillion
would be generated by OCS development in the Lower 48 for
federal, state, and local government, as well as 160,000 jobs.
She said the oil and gas industry has already spent billions of
dollars for the rights to explore and develop these OCS
resources offshore of Alaska. While harsh climate and remote
locations are challenges to OCS development, HJR 28 is a step
toward mitigating other types of challenges, such as access
restriction.
1:23:30 PM
TOM LAKOSH stated that he is a victim of the Exxon Valdez oil
spill and while he does not have a problem with offshore gas
exploration and development, he does have grave concerns about
Alaska's inadequate oil spill prevention and response,
particularly in Alaska's ice-bearing waters and extreme sea
states. He said he has researched oil spill prevention and
response technology and when he presented that technology at a
2003 conference, experts agreed that the technology would be
effective in Alaska's waters. He related, however, that a "BP"
representative told him the company did not need better spill
response because the Department of Environmental Conservation
gives an exemption from the oil spill response planning
standards when there is more than 10 percent ice on the water.
This seems very irresponsible, he said.
MR. LAKOSH contended that Alaska is 10 years behind in the
standard for evaluating oil spill response effectiveness. He
said he must therefore oppose HJR 28 if it promotes continuation
of this ineffective oil spill response. He requested that the
resolution's language be amended to exclude improved oil spill
prevention and response from any restrictions that the state or
federal government may impose on offshore development. He said
he does not like to think that committee members would violate
the constitutional right to reasonable concurrent use of
Alaska's resources, of which subsistence has the highest
priority and would be adversely affected by the present oil
spill regulation which is totally ineffective at preventing
damage to subsistence resources.
1:27:45 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said that HJR 28 does say safe and responsible
exploration. He explained that since it is a resolution, not a
bill, it does not exempt anyone from oil spill requirements. He
said he will follow up on the 10 percent ice exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether Mr. Lakosh had written
testimony.
MR. LAKOSH said he does not, but that he would like to follow up
with Representative Seaton directly to further explain the exact
impediments to effective oil spill recovery in both arctic
conditions and high seas that are not being properly addressed
by the Department of Environmental Conservation, the MMS, or the
U.S. Coast Guard.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON urged Mr. Lakosh to get with Representative
Seaton or himself because if there is technology to do it right,
then that should be implemented.
1:29:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether eliminating the term 50
miles from page 2, line 21, would satisfy Mr. Brune in regard to
not restricting OCS development.
MR. BRUNE responded that it would be the aforementioned location
as well as on page 1, line 4, and that it could be changed to
say up to the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone. He said it is
correct that there are areas in which Alaska's jurisdiction does
not extend that far, given other nations that border the state.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said the committee will probably look at some
kind of an amendment on this. He closed public testimony after
ascertaining that no one else wished to testify.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 as follows:
Page 1, line 4, following "within":
Delete "50"
Insert "200"
Page 2, line 21, following "within":
Delete "50"
Insert "200"
Page 2, line 31, following "within":
Delete "50"
Insert "200"
1:32:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion purposes. He
asked whether the co-chair wishes to restrict the distance to
200 miles or would it be better to say "the Outer Continental
Shelf controlled by the U.S." He noted there is a bill before
Congress that would extend U.S. jurisdiction beyond 200 miles.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said it is not his intention to limit the
distance and perhaps the amendment could state 200 miles or
whichever is greater. He asked whether the Law of the Sea
Treaty would go potentially 150 miles beyond the Outer
Continental Shelf or if the Outer Continental Shelf extended
more than 200 miles.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that if the Outer Continental
Shelf extends beyond 200 miles, then under the Law of the Sea
Treaty the U.S. could extend its jurisdiction beyond 200 miles,
but only as far as the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG commented that he would like to have
someone with offshore expertise tell the committee the
difference between the jurisdictions and what the result would
be if the language is changed to that being suggested by
Representative Seaton.
1:34:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he agrees with the 200 miles and is
only bringing this up because of discussions about the
jurisdiction possibly being extended beyond 200 miles.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said the resolution should not be based on what
may happen in the future, given that the Law of the Sea Treaty
has not yet been ratified.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said the committee should deal with the way
things are today.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that he objected for
discussion and is not offering an amendment to Conceptual
Amendment 1, but he just wanted the discussion for legislative
history to show that the intent is not to restrict the distance
to 200 miles should U.S. control of the Outer Continental Shelf
be extended beyond that distance. He withdrew his objection.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON, after ascertaining there was no further
objection, announced that Conceptual Amendment 1 has passed.
1:37:16 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN moved to report HJR 28, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK objected and expressed his concern with the
language "and elsewhere in the continental United States" that
appears on page 1, line 4, as well as several other places in
the resolution. He said it is not in Alaska's interest to
impose something on other states and trying to exercise control
over other states could create a backlash. Because he does not
like it when other states pass resolutions about Alaskan issues,
he said it concerns him when Alaska does this to other states.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said the term imposed is wishful thinking
because this is only a resolution and a communication to the
President and others asking them to take Alaska's wishes into
consideration. He said that because the resolution supports
something rather than opposes something, each state can use the
resolution as it wishes.
1:39:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK withdrew his objection and reiterated that
he would not want another state doing this to Alaska.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON offered his assurance that he would not try to
impose the committee's will on any other state.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG stated that even if the resolution is
successful in prompting action, that action might be prevented
by the current policies and regulations such that no leases
could occur. He urged caution in what is being asked for.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he is clear in what he is asking for.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN again moved to report HJR 28, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHJR 28(RES) was
reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
HCR 10-OPPOSE FED. CONTROL OF STATE LAND & WATER
1:42:03 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the next order of business would
be, HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10, Urging the Governor to
file an action to restrain the United States Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, from intruding on the sovereign
right of the state to exercise jurisdiction over navigable water
and submerged land and urging the Governor to allocate
sufficient resources to the Department of Law, the Department of
Natural Resources, and the Department of Fish and Game to defend
the state's right to manage the public use of its navigable
water.
1:43:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, noted that
the issue addressed by HCR 10 - protecting Alaska's jurisdiction
over navigable water and submerged land - was brought to his
attention by a constituent. He said his research of Alaska's
statehood rights found that the ownership of submerged lands and
navigable waters is guaranteed to the state and the state has
the providence over these; however, the federal government has
consistently tried to usurp those rights. It is incumbent upon
legislators to defend the state's land rights and land claims
process from federal government actions that have been
infringing upon the right to manage those lands, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER drew attention to a February 13, 2009,
letter from the Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas
to the state's acting attorney general. He read the first
sentence of the letter: "In 1996, over the strong objections of
the State of Alaska and others, the National Park Service
adopted regulations which improperly extended its management and
enforcement authorities over state owned navigable waters within
units of the National Park System." This federal encroachment
on Alaska's sovereign right to manage its land resources is the
problem, he argued.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said that while the State of Alaska has
been pursuing its title to submerged lands and navigable waters,
it has not been quite as diligent in protecting its right to
those submerged lands and navigable waters. Thus, HCR 10 urges
the governor to take legal action now to stop this preemption of
Alaska's rights. He pointed out that there is a technical
amendment that would urge the governor to take any and all
appropriate legal actions, including legal status, he added.
1:46:41 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN understood people were using submerged lands on
the Yukon River for float planes, boat launching, and driving
four-wheelers were issued citations by the National Park
Service. He asked Representative Hawker to expand on this point
of contention.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER deferred to John Sturgeon, the constituent
who brought this issue to his attention and who is on line to
testify.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired about the zero fiscal note given
that HCR 10 asks for action to be taken.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER replied that there is a budget allocation
inside the Department of Law for an entire section called
"Statehood Defense"; therefore it is already funded through the
annual appropriations process. He said the resolution will
remind the staff in this section of how important this is to the
legislature and to continue to pursue their work.
1:49:13 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON opened public testimony on HCR 10.
JOHN STURGEON said he is a business owner and has been in
Alaska's forest products industry for the last 39 years. He
spoke in support of HCR 10 on behalf of himself as an outdoors
sportsman. He testified as follows:
The State of Alaska is incrementally losing one of its
most cherished and valuable sovereign rights - the
right to manage its navigable waters. Management of
portions of rivers, such as the Yukon River, are being
taken away by the federal government. The State of
Alaska must take strong and decisive action
immediately or watch while it loses forever hundreds
of miles of rivers, thousands of lakes, and thousands
of miles of tideland.
Under equal footing doctrine, the statehood act, and a
submerged land act, the state assumed ownership at
statehood of submerged lands of navigable waters
between ordinary high water marks and below mean high
tide. The state acquired the full power and control
over navigable waters of the state regardless of the
ownership for watercraft use, mining, recreation,
commerce, et cetera, except for when Congress
specifically reduces a state's authority. An example
of that would be the Coast Guard when it comes to a
boating regulation for safety purposes. The state's
constitution, statutes, and regulations clearly say
the state owns and manages these submerged lands and
navigable waters and its citizens have free and
unrestricted access, unless restricted under
regulations authorized by the state legislature.
Alaska's law could not be clearer on this issue.
In addition, ANILCA [Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act], under section 103(c), states that
regulations adopted for national parks only apply to
the federal lands and not state or private lands
within those designated areas, and navigable waters
are considered ... state lands within those ANILCA-
designated areas. Beginning in 1996, the ... National
Park Service placed another layer of regulation over
the State of Alaska's management on these navigable
waters.
MR. STURGEON cited several examples of federal regulation that
he personally knows about on the Yukon River. He said the
actions of the National Park Service are, in effect, voiding the
state's legitimate jurisdiction on its navigable waters, and he
is therefore urging the legislature to help stop this by passing
HCR 10.
1:54:07 PM
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, supported
HCR 10 on behalf of the council's 2,500 individual members and
48 clubs. He related that in 1996 the National Park Service
determined this was simply a clarification of a prior law, and
since then it has frequently attempted to use this regulation to
further restrict access in numerous areas of the state. Alaska
is a unique area due to its lack of infrastructure and roads, he
said, therefore this access on navigable waters is extremely
important to all Alaskans, and particularly to members of the
council. He applauded Representative Hawker for listening to
his constituent and putting forth HCR 10.
1:56:19 PM
STAN LEAPHART, Executive Director, Citizens' Advisory Commission
on Federal Areas, explained that the commission is charged with
determining the impact of federal management, agency actions,
regulations, and management decisions on the citizens of the
State of Alaska. He related that Mr. Sturgeon testified before
the commission's November [2008] meeting in regard to this
issue. After subsequent follow-up work, the commission
determined it should recommend to the attorney general's office
and the governor that the state takes the necessary action to
resolve this issue.
MR. LEAPHART stated that ANILCA has some very specific language
that allows access to rivers and lakes. He said the commission
believes the state's authority to regulate its waters should not
be impeded by the provisions of ANILCA, nor should they be
impeded by National Park Service regulations. So far the
National Park Service has been constrained in enforcing these
regulations over the past 12 years, but there is evidence that
this may be changing as seen by the increasing number of
citations issued to people engaged in activities that are lawful
under state regulations.
MR. LEAPHART expressed the commission's concern that if the
National Park Service's regulations are allowed to stand, other
federal land management agencies might decide to promulgate the
same restrictive regulations. Such action would affect millions
of acres of federal lands within national wildlife refuges,
national forests, and wild and scenic river areas, he said;
thus, the commission supports HCR 10.
2:00:53 PM
SCOTT HAMANN maintained it is time for Alaskans to assert their
rights. He said he agrees with all of the previous testimony
and urged that HCR 10 be moved forward.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON closed public testimony after ascertaining that
no one else wished to testify.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN moved that the committee adopt [Conceptual]
Amendment 1, as follows:
Page 2, line 17, following "by the state,":
Delete "issuing citations to placer miners that
have valid state permits,"
Page 2, line 25, following "the Governor to":
Delete "file suit against the United States
Department of the Interior, National Park Service,"
Insert "pursue all available legal options"
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR OLSON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
2:03:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered the following friendly amendment
to Amendment 1:
Page 1, line 1, following "Governor to":
Delete "file an action"
Insert "pursue all legal options"
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON, after ascertaining there was no objection,
announced that the friendly amendment to [Conceptual] Amendment
1 has passed. [Conceptual] Amendment 1, as amended, was now
before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether Amendment 1 was offered as a
conceptual amendment.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON understood Amendment 1 to be conceptual even
though Co-Chair Neuman did not state it as such.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew his objection.
SENATOR OLSON withdrew his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG withdrew his objection.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON, after ascertaining there was no objection,
announced that Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended, has passed.
He said HCR 10 was now before the committee.
2:04:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG offered his opinion that the National
Park Service's long-term goal is to eliminate all human
habitation from a particular area along the Yukon River, despite
there being human presence in this area since the Gold Rush. He
said he therefore thinks HCR 10 is appropriate.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN moved to report HCR 10, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHCR 10(RES) was
reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
HJR 27-STATE SOVEREIGNTY
2:07:00 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the final order of business
would be, HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 27, Relating to sovereign
powers of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY, Alaska State Legislature, first noted
that the content of HJR 27 is identical to that of HR 9. He
said the federal government's encroachment on states' rights
seems to be dialing up. He read the following from his sponsor
statement:
According to the National Conference of State
Legislatures, "the volume of federal legislation that
preempts state authority has increased" and "pressure
continues to mount for Congress and the White House to
support federal usurpation of state authority in a
variety of areas such as criminal law, tort reform,
driver's license security and the environment."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY added that Alaska's right to manage its own
fish and game, navigable waters, and R.S. 2477 have all taken a
nasty turn, and now the federal funds for fighting the fight for
state access have been taken away. He pointed out that HJR 27
could have had more strident, secession-like language which
would have made several of his constituents happy. However, the
reason for a less strident resolution is because in other states
the resolutions with the more strident language did not pass.
He said that if Alaska does not receive favorable treatment upon
stating its demands in this manner, then he will lead the pack
for making Alaska's actions more strident.
2:11:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY related that four states have passed
sovereignty bills, 22 states have introduced such legislation,
and Alaska is among the 12 states expected to pass legislation.
Although some states have rejected strident language, he said
three states have more strident language than that of HJR 27.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY explained that the [United States
Constitution] was written under the principle of positive grant,
which means that the federal government is authorized to
exercise only those powers which are positively granted to it by
the constitution. Thus, if a power is not listed in the
constitution, then the federal government does not have it. He
said members must keep in mind that the founders envisioned a
confederation of states, not a one-size-fits-all solution, and
HJR 27 asserts Alaska's sovereign rights.
2:14:42 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN related that the cost of improving a nine-mile
road in his district doubled because of federal government
requirements. He cited several examples of demands made by the
federal government and surmised that the gist of HJR 27 is that
the federal government tells Alaska what to do and sometimes a
carrot is provided to force the action and sometimes not.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY answered that this is precisely so, from
Alaska from managing its own fish and game to access to its own
navigable waters.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that there is a difference
between intent and what is actually meant.
2:18:55 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON opened public testimony.
JAMES FLOYD applauded Representative Kelly's efforts and stated
that the legislature can always follow this resolution with an
act should there be more things that need to be said. There is
a lot of citizen concern that the federal government is stepping
beyond its scope of power on many different issues, he said.
The states entered a contract with each other called the U.S.
Constitution, and this contract created the federal government;
thus, it is the states that have the authority and the power.
He reported that since the 1990s, 47 legislatures have been
involved with this type of Tenth Amendment resolution. In this
regard, he read several statements made by legislators from
states around the U.S.
2:23:02 PM
SCOTT HAMANN stated that while he understands the reasoning for
toning down the resolution, the time for being nice has passed.
He urged that some teeth be put into legislation and one way to
do so would be to withhold the federal tax monies that are
collected in the state until the federal government does what
Alaska is requesting. The federal government will not be
receptive until something like this is done, he said.
2:24:24 PM
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, stated
that HJR 27 is not strident enough. As director of the Alaska
Outdoor Council and as a member of the Citizens' Advisory
Commission of Federal Areas (CACFA), he said he has seen over
and over again the loss of access, the loss of fish and game
management, and the loss of fish and game allocations because of
federal encroachment. He urged that HJR 27 be passed.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON closed public testimony after ascertaining that
no one else wished to testify.
2:25:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it seems to him that the language on
page 2, lines 17-19, says Alaska wants federal monies but does
not want to be told what to do with the money. He asked whether
Representative Kelly would be amenable to deleting the language
"or lose federal funding" because it diminishes the forcefulness
of the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied that there was a lot of discussion
on this while the resolution was being toned down. He said he
thinks it is important to have this language because it is one
of the ways the federal government consistently enforces its
inappropriate overreach. The federal government has taken away
250 million acres of productive land and has not kept its
promise on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The
federal government takes away from the state every chance it
gets, yet he is made to feel embarrassed about saying that the
federal government should not use money to make the state feel
better. He said the resolution is stating that the money sent
to Alaska is being used to force the state to breaks its own
Tenth Amendment rights. The resolution is not about money, it
is about the rights Alaska has a state; therefore he said he
prefers to leave this language in.
2:30:01 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON stated that he has sat through numerous budget
subcommittee meetings where the state replaced federal funds,
most of which came with a stipulation that the state must do
something or lose the funding. Often such funds suddenly
disappear and the state is left holding the bag and having to
determine whether to continue the program. He urged that the
resolution not be softened any further.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that he is not attempting to
soften the resolution. Rather, the language makes it appear to
him that what is really being talked about is getting federal
money and he sees these words as softening the resolution. He
agreed to keep the language in, given that this is what the
sponsor would like.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON added that he reads the language as requiring
the state to pass legislation or lose federal funding.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN commented that there could be an additional "Be
It Resolved" that returns some of the carrots so the state could
get some of its freedoms back.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded that a list should be made and
specific action directed, and if there is no action then the
next step can be discussed. He said he believes it best that
the first step not be a threat.
2:34:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested adding a comma after the word
penalties and after the word sanctions on page 2, line 18, as a
way of providing clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that adding the commas would make
"threat of civil or criminal penalties" one thought, "sanctions"
a second thought, and "requires states to pass legislation or
lose federal funding" a third thought.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered correct.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he does not think the commas change the
substance or the meaning, it just breaks things out.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that the commas would get to the
problem he is talking about.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said this appears to be okay at the moment,
but he reserves the right to come back if it is not.
2:37:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 as follows:
Page 2, line 18, following "penalties"
Insert ","
Page 2, line 18, following "sanctions":
Insert ","
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON, after ascertaining there was no objection,
announced that Conceptual Amendment 1 has passed.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK recalled discussions he and his fellow
Anchorage School District board members had about whether to
refuse federal funds and not participate in the No Child Left
Behind mandate. However, it was decided that loss of the funds
would have put too much of a burden on the school district.
Although a third of Alaska's economy is from federal funds, he
said there are times the state must flex and remind authorities
of its rights, but this is not to be construed that he is a
secessionist. He said he hopes there is enough money in the
"Statehood Defense Fund" to cover the resolution and Alaska's
best interests.
2:40:01 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether it would be beneficial to send
this to the governors of all 50 states.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY agreed that this is a good idea.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the resolution would be sent
to other legislatures or governors.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON replied that his intent was governors, but he
has no problem with it going to both legislatures and governors.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY agreed as long as it would not require a
fiscal note.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON pointed out that it can be done electronically
at no cost.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2 which would "send copies [of HCR 10] to the
governors and heads of the legislature, both bodies, with the
exception of Nebraska which only has one." There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was passed.
2:42:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG expressed his belief that page 2, line
19, weakens the resolution because the legislature has no
control over how the media might spin the federal money aspect.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON disagreed, saying he thinks it just separates
it out and more clearly defines it.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said the language on line 19 is confusing
and could be diminishing because he had taken line 19 to be one
concept instead of two concepts. He suggested adding a comma on
line 19 after the word legislation so it would separate it into
two concepts.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON pointed out that the sponsor has agreed to work
with Legislative Legal and Research Services to ensure the
verbiage is proper, plus there is a public record of what the
committee is looking for. He said that instead of amending the
resolution further he would like to advance it as it is because
this can be brought up again once the committee substitute is
seen.
2:45:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that no one is looking to lessen the
resolution, just help it.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said he likes the resolution as it is and
Representative Kelly can request that it go to the House Rules
Standing Committee if there needs to be a change.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON clarified that his purpose for a conceptual
amendment was not to hold it up, but to give members one more
look at the resolution before advancement. He said he thinks
all of the resolutions before the committee today [HJR 28, HCR
10, HJR 28] are important to the state and reflect why many
people came to Alaska and chose to stay. Alaska needs to flex
its muscle every chance it can get, he added.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN moved to report HJR 27, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHCR 27(RES) was
reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
2:47:42 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:48 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHCR 10(RES).pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 10 |
| CSHJR 27(RES).pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 27 |
| HJR 28 Packet.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 28 |
| HCR 10 Packet.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 10 |
| HJR 27 Packet.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 27 |
| CSHJR 28(RES).pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 28 |
| HCR 10 NPS Water Regs.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 10 |
| HCR 10 zero fiscal note.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 10 |
| HJR 27 zero fiscal note.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 27 |
| HJR 28 zero fiscal note.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 28 |