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