Legislature(1995 - 1996)

04/27/1995 04:15 PM RES

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

Document Name Date/Time Subjects