Legislature(1995 - 1996)

04/03/1996 08:07 AM RES

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

Document Name Date/Time Subjects